Menu Icon

Raúl Ilargi Meijer

Debt Rattle July 2 2026

Jul 022026
 
 July 2, 2026  Posted by at 9:22 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  22 Responses »


Francesco Queirolo Il Disinganno, Naples, Sansevero Chapel 1753-1754


• SCOTUS Strikes Down Trump EO and Establishes Birthright Citizenship (CTH)
• Justice Thomas Says Birthright Citizenship Ruling ‘Devalues’ US Citizenship (ET)
• A Roadmap To Fix Birthright Citizenship (Dmitri Bolt)
• The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Mistake (Ben Shapiro)
• The Roberts Requirement – Pregnancy Tests for U.S. Travel Visas (CTH)
• The DOJ Goes to War on Birth Tourism After Losing at SCOTUS (Margolis)
• Miller: Every Single Haitian Migrant Is GOING BACK to Haiti Under Trump (MN)
• The Canadian Dollar is Collapsing – Here’s What to Expect Next (CTH)
• Elon’s Next Move: Your Money (Adam Sharp)
• SpaceX Takes Aim At Smartphone Market With New AI Device (ZH)
• NATO Chief Admits To Sleepless Nights Over Russia (TASS)
• Leader of Germany’s Most Popular Party Wants To Restore Ties With Russia (RT)
• Ozempic Sat Unused for Decades (QTR)
• How Fauci Can Still Face Prosecution Despite His Pardon (Margolis)

 


 

https://twitter.com/warDaniel47/status/2072003087397429449?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2072011455457640624?s=20 https://twitter.com/defense_civil25/status/2072125550450344056?s=20

 


 


“There is no longer an apple, it’s all worms.”

Birthright citizenship is a 150-year old theme that is being recast. It deserves the attention.

• SCOTUS Strikes Down Trump EO and Establishes Birthright Citizenship (CTH)

Like many of you I am profoundly angered by the Supreme Court decision that fractures our nation and conveys citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States. In fact, I was so angered to my core, I went for a long walk before doing any further commenting on the matter. U.S. Citizenship is now determined by how good at violating our nation’s borders, by conniving, by scheming and by deception to create a qualified child where no adult qualification exists. This is the most detrimental decision by the Supreme Court in generations and will profoundly impact our nation. There is no longer an apple, it’s all worms.


Today, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship status to everyone born in the United States. In a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, five supreme court justices agreed with the challengers saying Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

(6-3) Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.” Roberts was joined in the majority by Justice SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, JACKSON and KAVANAUGH. nbJustice THOMAS filed a dissenting opinion with GORSUCH and ALITO.

SCOTUS BLOG – In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling, “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake.” “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption,” Alito argued, “shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead,” he contended, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the result that the court reached – that the president’s executive order is invalid – but not its reasoning. In his view, Trump’s order “does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment” but does violate a federal law providing that children who are “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are U.S. citizens. Congress, Kavanaugh suggested, “could amend” that law “or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But,” he noted, “Congress has not yet done so.”

Justice Clarence Thomas penned a lengthy dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. He called the majority’s account “not historically accurate” and said that it “adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.” Gorsuch also wrote a separate brief dissent, in which he appeared to suggest that Trump’s executive order might violate the Constitution as it applies to the children of undocumented immigrants who intend to live in the United States permanently.

“If those parents are not domiciled here,” Gorsuch queried, “then where are they domiciled? And if the answer is nowhere,” he continued, “how can we reconcile that conclusion with this Court’s longstanding recognition that every person is domiciled somewhere?” Because the challengers in this case have argued that Trump’s order is invalid in all circumstances, rather than just some, Gorsuch explained, “these questions may not be properly before us. But their answers are undeniably important to a Nation committed to a view of citizenship open to all children born here to parents who can call this country their home.” (SOURCE)

Consequences and possibilities to come in the next few articles on the matter.

Read more …

“.. the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects..”

• Justice Thomas Says Birthright Citizenship Ruling ‘Devalues’ US Citizenship (ET)

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a lengthy dissent criticizing the high court’s majority ruling against President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, saying the decision would effectively devalue American citizenship as it was understood by those who created the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Thomas said the majority is attempting to repurpose the 14th Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text,” referring to the post-Civil War era of the mid-to-late 19th century.


Further, he argued that the June 30 ruling denigrates the idea of U.S. citizenship, saying that it has been used by “foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time,” Thomas wrote. “The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.” The order issued by Trump aimed to exclude children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors from gaining automatic birthright citizenship. In 1898, the high court delivered the landmark birthright citizenship ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which effectively stated that any child born in the United States to immigrants is granted citizenship regardless of the nationality of the child’s parents.

In addition to Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented and indicated that they would allow Trump’s executive order to stand. Justice Brett Kavanaugh partially concurred with the majority in saying that he thinks the Trump administration’s executive order does violate a federal statute but that the constitutionality of birthright citizenship is an open question and that the executive order doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment. “The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Thomas said in the 91-page dissent, which is significantly longer than the majority’s opinion.

Thomas indicated that he sided with the Trump administration’s arguments that the 14th Amendment, ratified three years after the end of the Civil War in 1868, was intended to give citizenship to black people who were freed from slavery rather than automatically giving it to the children of immigrants. “In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support,” he said. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Roberts wrote, citing congressional debate over the 14th Amendment. “We keep that promise today.” Multiple lower courts have blocked the executive order, signed by Trump early in his presidential term last year, and it has not taken effect anywhere in the United States. The high court ruled on the president’s appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the birthright citizenship restrictions.

Birthright citizenship was the first Trump administration immigration-related issue to reach the Supreme Court for a final ruling. Since he took office, Trump has rolled out policies designed to deport large numbers of illegal immigrants, namely those with criminal records. He has also canceled temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of people living in the United States, bolstered U.S. border security, initiated policies encouraging illegal aliens to self-deport, and issued other rules. In response to the June 30 ruling, Trump said, “[The ruling is] too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation.”

“Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship,” he wrote on Truth Social. “They will have my Complete and Total Support!” In a previous post, he argued that “dumb judges and justices” allow wealthy women from China and elsewhere to come to the United States with the sole purpose of giving birth so that their children will be American citizens. He noted that few other countries have such a policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hailed the majority opinion, saying that the “decision reaffirms a fundamental American promise—if you are born here, you are a citizen.” “A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat,” ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang said in a statement. “Our brave clients and our legal team stand with millions of people around our country who spoke up for one of our most cherished rights. The Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship stands strong.”

Read more …

“Nor presumably would they have wanted to grant constitutional birthright citizenship to children of foreign citizens unlawfully in the country while simultaneously denying constitutional birthright citizenship to children of tribal American Indians.

• A Roadmap To Fix Birthright Citizenship (Dmitri Bolt)

Despite Tuesday’s disappointing ruling on birthright citizenship, one of the conservative justices outlined a potential path forward that could address concerns such as birth tourism and the automatic granting of citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.


Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in striking down President Trump’s executive order but wrote separately in partial dissent. He concluded the order conflicted with existing federal law, not that it was unconstitutional. In his opinion, he also outlined a framework for addressing concerns surrounding birthright citizenship through legislation, making clear that any path to lasting change would likely require an act of Congress.

“Significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868 and that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment could not have fully anticipated,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And the Framers likely would not have anticipated (and presumably would not have intended) the odd result of granting a substantial birthright citizenship benefit to (i) those foreign citizens who violate U. S. immigration law and illegally enter or overstay and then have children in the United States over (ii) those foreign citizens who follow U. S. immigration law and have children in their home countries while seeking to lawfully immigrate to the United States. Nor presumably would they have wanted to grant constitutional birthright citizenship to children of foreign citizens unlawfully in the country while simultaneously denying constitutional birthright citizenship to children of tribal American Indians.”

“Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country,” he added. “But Congress has not yet done so.”

The likelihood of Congress taking up the issue remains slim, making Kavanaugh’s proposed path a difficult one. More importantly for the Trump administration, the Court did not merely hold that birthright citizenship is a matter for Congress to regulate. The majority reaffirmed that the Citizenship Clause applies to the children of individuals in the country illegally or on temporary visas, while noting that only narrow exceptions were historically recognized, including the children of foreign diplomats.

Even if Congress were to pass legislation altering the rules surrounding birthright citizenship, the law would almost certainly face immediate legal challenges before making its way back to the Supreme Court. It remains unclear whether Justices Amy Coney Barrett or Chief Justice John Roberts would alter their positions, though there is little indication they would. If not, the Court’s majority would likely continue to uphold its current interpretation of birthright citizenship.

Read more …

Not a mistake. They didn’t have the guts to touch it.

• The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Mistake (Ben Shapiro)

The Supreme Court has now settled, at least for the foreseeable future, one of the most contentious questions in American immigration law: A child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the child’s parents entered the country legally or came solely to give birth. That remains the law after the court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. Barbara. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the court’s liberal justices, concluded that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to virtually anyone born on American soil. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the majority has fundamentally misread both the Constitution and American history.


The ruling itself is hardly surprising. Federal courts have interpreted birthright citizenship this way for generations. What is remarkable is the historical reasoning Roberts employs to justify that conclusion. The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The debate has always centered on these words: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If mere birth within U.S. borders automatically settled the matter, the jurisdiction language would seem unnecessary. Why include it at all? That question lies at the heart of the case.

Roberts traces the answer back to English common law, arguing that the American understanding of citizenship grew directly out of Britain’s doctrine of birthright subjecthood. Under that rule, even a foreign woman who entered Britain briefly, gave birth and immediately departed still produced a child who owed allegiance to the Crown because the sovereign protected the child at birth. According to the majority, the American Founders largely carried that principle forward after independence, replacing “subjects” with “citizens” while preserving the underlying rule. The dissenters reject that premise entirely.

Thomas argues that the American Revolution was a rejection of the British conception of political allegiance itself. Americans ceased to be subjects of a monarch and became citizens of a republic. In his view, importing British common-law doctrines wholesale into the 14th Amendment ignores the very political philosophy that gave birth to the United States.Thomas contends that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires more than physical presence. It requires complete political allegiance to the United States, not merely temporary subjection to American laws while visiting the country. Under that interpretation, citizenship would depend in significant part on the legal status and allegiance of the parents.

That approach is not without precedent. American law already looks to parental status in several contexts. Children born to foreign diplomats, for example, are not automatically granted U.S. citizenship because their parents are not fully subject to American jurisdiction. Thomas also disputes the majority’s historical account. He argues that the court relies heavily on the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark while overlooking evidence from the years immediately following the ratification of the 14th Amendment. According to the dissent, all three branches of the federal government initially rejected the sweeping interpretation the court now embraces, and 19th-century Americans generally viewed exclusive national allegiance as incompatible with widespread dual citizenship.

Alito argues that the court is allowing practical concerns about modern immigration to shape its constitutional interpretation. Reversing the current understanding of birthright citizenship, he acknowledges, could create enormous legal and political complications for millions of people. But, Alito writes, avoiding difficult consequences is not a valid reason to adopt what he considers an incorrect reading of the Constitution.

In one of the sharpest passages of his dissent, Alito argues that the 14th Amendment does not require the nation to extend citizenship to the children of so-called birth tourists or others whose parents came to the United States solely to secure citizenship for their children. He concludes that the majority’s historical narrative is fundamentally flawed, beginning with its assumption that America simply inherited Britain’s rule of birthright subjecthood after independence. Whether one agrees with the majority or the dissent, the practical consequence is clear. Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land, and it is likely to remain so unless the Constitution is amended or the court revisits the issue in the future.

That places the responsibility squarely where it has long belonged: on Congress and the president. If policymakers believe current immigration policy encourages abuses of birthright citizenship, the remedy lies not with constitutional reinterpretation but with enforcing immigration law and reforming the nation’s border policies. The Supreme Court has spoken. The constitutional debate will continue, but the political branches can no longer avoid confronting the immigration system that made this controversy so consequential in the first place.

Read more …

“Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.”

• The Roberts Requirement – Pregnancy Tests for U.S. Travel Visas

What is proposed below is regulatory, lawful and entirely intended to create hardships and burdens. Thus, a new era in State Department visa requirements respond to newly established guidelines by the Supreme Court. As a pragmatic and patriotic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the U.S. State Department immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar visa entry protocols previously used for COVID-19 tests prior to U.S. admittance. The Roberts Requirement: Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.


The certified document, negative pregnancy test, together with all related visa approvals must be presented to Customs and Border Patrol at each port of entry. Failure disqualifies the traveler. This is the same protocol as COVID-19, only using pregnancy status as the disqualifying health issue. It is a lawful regulation, born from a new standard established by the Supreme Court, that does not need congressional approval. Don’t get stuck on details about why it will not work, it will. Start thinking like a person who realizes the goal is to create severe antagonism through regulation. That antagonism can then be directed.

Aim isolation, ridicule and marginalization at those who created the problem. This can be done without visible vitriol. The objective is not just making sure pregnant women do not get visas; that is one small element. The bigger objective is to make it extremely difficult to come to the USA and THEN pin that global compliance requirement on Chief Justice John Roberts, making him live every day with the consequences of his blinded American stupidity; facing him, belittling him, ridiculing him, sitting on the front pages of his peers and global friends. Chief Justice John Roberts created this mess, now put it on his doorstep every day. But people will lie – doesn’t matter. But people will create fake documents – doesn’t matter. But people will still overstay their visas – doesn’t matter.

You are putting the emphasis on the wrong aspect. Make every overburdensome visa rule and travel permit regulation specifically attributable to John Roberts decision. Pre-screenings, pregnancy tests, supplemental bond requirements for 15-to 45-year-old females, shortened visa terms and much more. No exclusions for diplomats, sports figures, foreign actors, employees, H1Bs, student entry or any other visa type – the works. Make the total visa entry system subject to a regulatory and compliance nightmare at a scale that is unheard of. That is the scale of the problem Roberts has created. Now blame John Roberts for it.

This ‘Roberts Requirement’ applies to all visa types. The objective, and it can accompany many other requirements such as a “bond” attachment required for 15- to 45-year-old females to travel, is to create such an overwhelmingly restrictive visa process that it creates ridicule on the SCOTUS decision. Make every regulation specifically cited to the Supreme Court decision and make it exceptionally burdensome. Make SCOTUS own the outcome. Canadians and Mexicans also need to comply. The same rules apply to every nation and no longer are visas determined by timeline, but by the number of extensions required or allowed within it. Every visa has a maximum duration of 3 months, with various extensions possible.

A one-year visa becomes a three-month visa with 4 extensions allowed. At each extension the same origination requirements must be fulfilled. A two-year USA visa, is now a U.S. visa with 7 extensions allowed, etc. Student visas carry the same requirement for 3-month extensions. Require a – refundable at exit – surety bond purchase valued at $500,000 for any non-tourist visa. [Later the bond issuer, sell those non-refunded bonds and release the bounty hunters.] No visas are exempt from the entry requirements. This is a new era with new rules that specifically come as an outcome of new judicial rulings. This is not a White House or State Department issue. This is an issue created by the Supreme Court that needs an immediate response.

Congress can fix it, but in the interim – maximum regulatory pressure is applied directly to the wound. Example of point and counterpoints. POINT: Canada, Mexico, India or [XXX] will scream this is unfair given the nature of our collaborative visa designations. Counterpoint: Yes, you are correct. That was then; this is now. The nature of our visa system has changed because SCOTUS has just codified new distinctions on citizenship that now become new visa factors.

Your nation does not convey birthright citizenship, so I understand your inability to accept our new terms. Unfortunately, our nation now does convey birthright citizenship, and as a consequence changes are needed. Don’t back down. Make SCOTUS own it. Sure, there will be legal challenges, all the way up to the same SCOTUS, and what are they going to do? Think about it! Make everyone live by the new rules – that are created by those who didn’t think about the consequences.

Read more …

“The potential charges include visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and wire fraud.”

• The DOJ Goes to War on Birth Tourism After Losing at SCOTUS (Margolis)

It ain’t over until it’s over, and the Department of Justice says it ain’t over. For sure, the Supreme Court handed the left a win Monday, but the Department of Justice didn’t spend much time licking its wounds. The court ruled on Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. The ruling held that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This terrible ruling effectively protects “birth tourism,” the scheme in which pregnant women overstay visas or enter the country illegally specifically to give birth and secure U.S. citizenship for their children.


Jesse Watters addressed it on The Five on Tuesday. “Now, the Chinese communists could take their pregnant wife to Guam, have a baby, fly the baby back to Beijing with a U.S. passport, and then that baby, when he’s older, can get welfare, he can vote,” Watters said. “Technically, when he’s 35, he could become President of the United States. That’s the stupidest thing anyone ever thought of.” DOJ senior official Colin McDonald issued a department-wide memo directing federal prosecutors to prioritize investigations and criminal charges against people who travel to the United States under false pretenses to give birth. The potential charges include visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and wire fraud.

“The Department of Justice will zealously protect the sanctity of United States citizenship by investigating and prosecuting those who fraudulently exploit our immigration system,” McDonald wrote in the memo, which he posted publicly on social media. The DOJ had already telegraphed this move before the ruling came down, calling birth tourism a “national security threat” and pledging to “prioritize the prosecutions of birth tourism schemes across the country.” The Supreme Court can hold the line on the 14th Amendment. The DOJ intends to go after the fraud. The fraud, by the way, is real.

Back in 2019, Chinese national Dongyuan Li ran a company called You Win USA Vacation Services, which helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth. Li claimed to have served more than 500 customers, charging each between $40,000 and $80,000, and she received $3 million in wire transfers from China over two years. Li coached clients to lie on visa applications and at U.S. consulate interviews in China, claiming a two-week stay while planning to stay up to three months, and trained them to conceal their pregnancies from customs officials.

You Win USA marketed the service by promising children “13 years of free education,” “less pollution,” “an easier way for the whole family to immigrate to the United States,” and “priority for jobs in U.S. government, public companies, and large corporations.” Citizenship as a premium package, complete with step-by-step coaching on how to fool the U.S. government. Li pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2019. A judge sentenced her to 10 months in prison for running a multimillion-dollar operation that turned U.S. citizenship into a product. The Supreme Court may have blocked the executive order, but the DOJ hasn’t walked away from the fight.

Read more …

“Slams Biden’s “heinous” policy of flying migrants en masse into Springfield and the Midwest”.

• Miller: Every Single Haitian Migrant Is GOING BACK to Haiti Under Trump (MN)

White House Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller delivered a clear and forceful message: every Haitian national on Temporary Protected Status will be returned to Haiti under President Trump. The Biden administration’s last-year extension of TPS turned what began as a short-term response to a 2010 earthquake into a permanent pipeline. Miller called the deliberate importation of these migrants into places like Springfield, Ohio, one of the most heinous acts the government has ever committed. Miller laid it out without hedging:


“There’s an earthquake in Haiti. So she’s (Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano) announcing TPS for a few months while they’re recovering from an earthquake. That was in 2010, 15 years ago. Then the Biden administration in its last year extends TPS to every single illegal alien from Haiti while they are flying them en masse into Springfield, Ohio, across the Midwest.” He continued, “It was a formal policy of replacing the communities that lived in, settled, and sustained these communities for generations. It was one of the most heinous things this government has ever done.”

“And yes, under President Trump, let me be very clear, the illegal alien Haitians are going back to Haiti. They can build their country there,” Miller further urged. This directly follows the Trump administration’s earlier termination of TPS protections for 353,000 Haitians, with those designations set to expire. The move reversed Biden-era renewals that kept hundreds of thousands in the country long after any temporary justification had passed. Springfield became the most visible example of the fallout. Local residents watched as federal policies funneled large numbers of Haitian migrants into their city, straining housing, schools, and public resources.

Americans reported being priced out of apartments while migrants received housing assistance. Parks saw geese and other wildlife targeted. In one city commission meeting, Springfield City Manager Brian Heck admitted he had “heard about” reports of Haitian migrants eating pets. The conditions many of these migrants left behind in Haiti only underscore why prolonged TPS extensions made little sense. Armed gangs, including groups with documented histories of extreme violence and intimidation tactics, have dominated large parts of the country.

Earlier coverage highlighted how some media outlets appeared more exercised by conservatives simply stating these facts than by the violence itself. In a separate but related immigration development today, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling striking down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants.

The decision keeps in place a policy that automatically grants U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil regardless of their parents’ legal status. Critics have long argued this creates powerful incentives for unlawful entry and serves as a form of chain migration that complicates enforcement.

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was crafted in the aftermath of slavery to secure rights for freed people, not to function as a standing invitation for foreign nationals to secure citizenship for their offspring through illegal presence. While the birthright ruling hands open-border advocates a victory and adds another layer of legal friction to enforcement, Miller’s remarks show the administration is not pausing on other fronts. TPS designations were always meant to be temporary. Extending them for 15 years while actively importing large numbers into specific American communities was never about humanitarian relief — it was about demographic engineering.

American towns like Springfield paid the price in drastically altered neighborhoods, and lost quality of life. Restoring the original meaning of temporary protection and returning those without ongoing legal status is not radical. It is the baseline responsibility of any government that puts its own citizens first. The message from the White House is consistent: the replacement experiment is over. Those here under expired or terminated protections are going home. Haiti’s future will be built by Haitians in Haiti, not by continuing to offload its population onto American communities that never asked for the burden.

Read more …

Antagonizing Trump will not work out well.

• The Canadian Dollar is Collapsing – Here’s What to Expect Next (CTH)

The Canadian dollar is starting to feel the effects of long-term uncertainty. It will get worse.


…”Since the start of June, the currency has weakened 2.9%, which would be its steepest monthly decline since October 2024, as Canadian bond yields fell further below U.S. yields.”…

Now, this is where you really need to pay attention to details. Remember, the U.K and EU have a vested interest in protecting Canada from economic collapse. President Trump doesn’t want immediate collapse either -because Xi will move in fast- but Trump is not going to provide the same financial and economic lifelines that the other four-eyes will trigger. Reuters is reporting that tomorrow the U.S. will formally declare a “non-extension” of the USMCA trade agreement and that triggers a 10-year period to decoupling. It is very important to understand there is a difference between announcing a “non-extension” and announcing a “withdrawal“. The Canadians are completely confused about what is about to happen.

In a non-extension announcement, the USA is saying they do not want to extend or renew the terms of the agreement beyond the current trade agreement terms. Yes, this is a 10-year exit. However, that’s not the part that matters. Announcing a decision to exit the USMCA (CUSMA), a full withdrawal from the trilateral deal, triggers a six-month countdown to exit. The deadline to announce the decision to extend is July 1st. There is no deadline on the timeline to announce an exit or withdrawal from the USMCA. That announcement can happen at any time. Put simply, announcing a non-renewal is a 10-year exit. Announcing a withdrawal is a 6-month exit. The announcement to withdraw can come at any time after the statement of non-renewal.

You can see the confusion in this article:
WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is expected to formally declare on Wednesday that it will not extend the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, starting a decade-long clock to wind down the 32-year-old North American free trade zone as the three countries haggle over proposed changes. That declaration will kick off a six-year review session, part of a “sunset clause” negotiated by President Donald Trump’s first administration. However, it will do little to alter contentious negotiations over the pact’s future, including sweeping demands to boost U.S. and regional content in North American automotive production and trade protections to block Chinese goods from benefiting from USMCA. (read more)

The most likely scenario is Trump/Greer first say the USA is not renewing (not extending). Then, at a later date determined by them (in my opinion it will be after the U.S-Mexico agreement is finished), Trump and Greer will then announce the withdrawal, which will trigger the 6-month countdown to exit. There is no rush to announce the withdrawal; the only immediate action is to announce a USMCA renewal is not happening. What this scenario does is put maximum pressure on Canada. As soon as President Trump says the USA will not extend the agreement, all investment into Canada becomes extremely tenuous. The Canadian dollar will weaken further; a slow contraction will begin.

However, Canada will still be oblivious to what comes next because their media will tell them they have a decade to work things out. They don’t. At a time determined by President Trump and USTR Jamieson Greer, they will announce a decision to exit the USMCA which then triggers a 6-month phase before the agreement is terminated. This is where Canada will be caught off guard and the economic collapse will likely be rapid and catastrophic. Canada will only just begin to think about the “exit” scenario, once the non-renewal announcement is made. It will take them a while to realize how vulnerable they are – they are currently in full denial mode.

During this period, President Trump carries massive leverage against Canada. He will likely probe their trade position and willingness to comply with reciprocity after the non-renewal announcement. The outcome of those probes will determine the timeline of his exit announcement. During this non-renewal phase, we may even see President Trump tease the exit, then retract, then tease the exit again. Each time Trump tests the Canadian government with statements, the Canadian economy will pulsate and weaken; it will drive the Canadian government to either extreme anger, or defeated compliance.

Timing the completion of the U.S-Mexico deal within the probes of Canada will be super interesting. At some point as the U.S. closes in on the deal with Mexico, Canada is going to realize they are naked without any agreement. The worst-case scenario for Canada is President Trump announcing the USMCA exit on the same day he announces a completed bilateral deal with Mexico. It would be the worst-case scenario for Mark Carney because the ignored voices of those few people in Canada who have been trying to warn about this would suddenly get a lot of attention.

Read more …

The “everything app” is not an app.

• Elon’s Next Move: Your Money (Adam Sharp)

For years, Elon Musk has dreamed of turning X (formerly Twitter) into the “everything app”. Now that X is part of SpaceX (SPCX), and the combined company just raised $112 billion, the time looks ripe. Elon envisions X as a single place where you can bank, chat, earn, advertise, use AI, shop, and more. X Money is a key part of that vision. And we just got the first idea of what it will look like. The program just launched to a small group of users. To attract deposits, X is offering some pretty crazy (and likely temporary) perks:


6% APY on cash, no deposit limit
3% cash back on purchases (with exceptions)
$10 million FDIC insurance (by splitting deposits up between banks)

A 6% yield is not sustainable long-term (at current interest rates). It’s a teaser rate to get people to switch to X Money. Same goes for 3% cash back. That’s 3x higher than the industry average, and will almost certainly not last long. These teasers may get a lot of people to switch. But it’s unclear how long the perks will last, and it’s currently only available to a small group. X is not a bank. At least not yet. It’s more like a “neobank”, which manages the marketing and customer relationship, while licensed banks handle the deposits. But for the user, it feels like a bank account and debit card. Deposits, yield, wire transfers, autopay, P2P payments, etc.

The WeChat Model
Musk’s desire to build the “everything app” may have been inspired by China’s WeChat. WeChat is owned by Chinese tech firm Tencent. It started out as a simple messaging app. But Tencent rapidly expanded its utility, and today it is basically a digital operating system for the country. In China, WeChat is used for payment, invoices, government interactions, making appointments, videos, shopping, games, chatting on social media, and much more. WeChat Pay holds a massive 38% share of payments in China. More than a billion people use the app. It’s so ubiquitous that many Chinese people essentially run their lives through the app. Largely as a result of WeChat’s success, Tencent has become a $488 billion tech giant. This is what Musk is aiming for. If X Money succeeds, it could help justify SpaceX’s lofty valuation of $2.2 trillion.

SpaceX’s Huge Ambitions
X (formerly Twitter) has been the least-discussed part of SpaceX. All the attention has been on rockets and AI. For good reason. Those are both very exciting areas. But X deserves attention as well. Musk aims to turn the social network into a super-app, much like WeChat. Musk purchased Twitter for $44 billion. If he succeeds, it could be worth much more over the long term. But running what is essentially a combination bank and social network is no easy matter. For one thing, it makes security far more important (and challenging). It’s going to require a massive customer support team. And that’s one area where Elon’s X has struggled.

X Money is going to be a critical part of building the “everything app”. And the team is going big on the launch. Think about the 6% APYs X is offering on deposits. Let’s say that X Money attracts $10 billion in deposits over the first year. Paying a 6% yield on that much cash could cost SpaceX $240 million a year in losses. That’s assuming their own internal return on cash is around 3.5%, plus bank fees and other transaction costs. This is why I assume the 6% APY is temporary.

And the 3% cash back? That appears to be on a debit card, which doesn’t have the same fee support as a credit card. So that could be another very expensive tool to attract users. But the losses could be worth it. The market they’re targeting is massive. Payments, banking, and eventually – everything.So will X succeed in becoming a “super app”? Honestly? I think it’s a long shot. X Money would probably need to be wildly successful and run away with the market.

One problem is that Meta/Facebook (META) will copy anything that looks to be working. The company is notorious for it. And they have a much larger user base. Meta also already has WhatsApp pay and several payment integrations with Facebook. Another problem is that American banks are extremely profitable, and in some ways act like a cartel. They won’t appreciate X stepping onto their turf, and may fight back. With lawfare, lobbying, or other means.

A Beautiful But Difficult Model
The “everything app”, or the WeChat model has been the dream of every social media company in the world for a while. But it’s going to be very difficult to pull off at this stage of the game. Then again, we should never count Elon out. If he’s going to go hard after this market, SpaceX certainly has a shot at winning it. SpaceX just raised $87 billion in its IPO, then another $25 billion in bond sales. That is a massive war chest. SPCX has big aspirations. And with a $2.2 trillion market cap, it has a lot of growing to do in order to justify that lofty price. X Money is a calculated risk by SpaceX. One that could pay off big.

Read more …

“Everything app” device.

• SpaceX Takes Aim At Smartphone Market With New AI Device (ZH)

The story around Elon Musk’s SpaceX positioning Starlink as a potential mobile carrier to challenge legacy telcos and cable dinosaurs continues to gain momentum. A new Wall Street Journal report says the AI and rocket company has shown investors a prototype of a handset-like device, suggesting SpaceX may be looking beyond satellites and broadband toward vertically integrated consumer devices to take on smartphone giants like Apple and Samsung.


The device, described by people familiar with the matter as slimmer than an iPhone with a “sleek design,” is still said to be in the prototype stage. It is expected to run on a Qualcomm Snapdragon chipset, suggesting SpaceX may be testing a consumer hardware layer that could eventually tie together Starlink connectivity, xAI software, and a proprietary operating system. Last week, TD Cowen analyst Gregory Williams told clients that if SpaceX/Starlink fails to secure an MVNO/retail mobile deal, then the next logical move would be to acquire T-Mobile. SpaceX told some investors that the project was at an early stage. The design could change and it is unclear whether such a device will be made.

…

The project is a sign of Musk’s sprawling ambitions as he builds a leading global satellite connectivity network, grows his rocket company and creates new AI tools. AI companies are placing a variety of bets on the future form and functionality of AI-powered devices. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Musk has in the past weighed building a smartphone due to frustration over how Apple controls distribution of third-party apps such as X. It isn’t easy, however, for a newcomer to break into the hardware business. -WSJ

SpaceX Builds A Regulatory Moat Around Its Starlink Empire
The read here is that Musk appears to be eyeing the entire consumer connectivity stack in one swoop. Starlink is the network layer, xAI provides the intelligence layer, a proprietary operating system would control the software experience, and a handset-like device would serve as the consumer endpoint. In other words, Musk is not just challenging telcos and big cable. It is also a shot across the bow for smartphone makers, app stores, and the AI assistant layer now being embedded across consumer devices.

Read more …

They need Trump to go along. Or it will be after his term. But war it will be.

• NATO Chief Admits To Sleepless Nights Over Russia (TASS)

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte believes Russia to be the main threat to the alliance and admits that this keeps him up at night. “Usually, I try to sleep at night, but if something keeps me up, it’s Russia. <…> China is having a massive buildup of its own military, will have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. So, let’s not be naive about China. But <…> Russia is the main threat now and in the longer term,” the NATO chief told the Anadolu news agency in an interview ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara on July 7-8. He added that one of the alliance’s priorities is “maintaining support for Ukraine.”


When asked about his expectations for the summit, Rutte said he hopes that, once it concludes, “people will say it was a summit that implemented the commitments made in The Hague [last year].” These were increasing defense spending and strengthening the military-industrial complex. “There are several successful examples, and things are generally getting better. One of the most important priorities is increasing production output in the defense industry. We will address this issue first at the NATO Defense Industry Forum on the summit’s opening day,” the NATO chief noted.

Read more …

“Bringing back cheap Russian energy would help the German economy recover, AfD leader Alice Weidel has said..”

She makes sense. But they’ve long since decided on war.

• Leader of Germany’s Most Popular Party Wants To Restore Ties With Russia (RT)

Germany urgently needs to lift the ban on Russian oil and gas imports to prop up its struggling economy, Alice Weidel, the co-chair of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, has said. She also vowed to restore economic ties between the two countries if her party comes to power. The German economy was dealt a major blow when the country took part in the Western sanctions on Russia in 2022. Before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Germany relied on Russia for 55% of its natural gas. Russian oil giant Rosneft’s operations also accounted for around 12% of Germany’s total oil-processing capacity.


“Cheap energy from Russia was the secret of the success of ‘Made in Germany’. We need it back,” Weidel said in an interview with Reuters published on Tuesday. “The loss of this energy has set us back years. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. It has made us dependent on the United States, which sells us energy at far higher prices.” The decision to abandon cheap Russian energy played a major role in slowing down the German economy, which contracted in 2023 and 2024 – the first back-to-back annual drop since the early 2000s.

In January, the country’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) reported an alarmingly high number of bankruptcies. In March, the Federal Statistical Office said the nation’s industrial output fell by 1.2% year-on-year. In both cases, high energy prices were cited as a key factor. The German Environmental Aid Association (DUH) reported in January that 96% of the nation’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports in 2025 came from the US. The AfD has argued that Germany essentially became dependent on one country.

The AfD has steadily gained support in Germany amid record-low approval ratings for Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s policies. Berlin has been actively pouring money into a military buildup, citing the supposed ‘Russian threat’, which Moscow has dismissed as “nonsense.” Merz has also blamed the country’s economic problems on the German people, urging them to “work more,” while announcing plans to slash social spending.

An INSA survey published on Tuesday suggests that the AfD enjoys the greatest support among all German parties (29%), seven percentage points ahead of Merz’s Christian Democratic Union. The right-wing party’s popularity has grown despite being boycotted by all other major German parties as part of the ‘firewall’ – an informal ban on any coalition or coordinated voting with the AfD. The next general election in Germany is expected in 2029.

Read more …

“Ozempic is a story of pharmacological success, but also of entrepreneurial failure.”:

• Ozempic Sat Unused for Decades (QTR)

Led by Ozempic and Wegovy, glucagon-like peptides (GLP-1s) have become a global phenomenon, with one in eight US adults currently taking one. Those two branded compounds, both made by Novo Nordisk, emerged from attempts to develop a diabetes drug. It effectively lowers blood glucose, slows gastric emptying, and reduces hunger, leading many patients to experience profound weight loss. In a world plagued by increasing obesity, the drugs’ utility extends far beyond diabetes treatment. So why did the formula sit untouched for 30 years after it was licensed?


Ozempic is a story of pharmacological success, but also of entrepreneurial failure. The tale provides a strong reminder that inventions and discoveries mean little unless they are combined with sound entrepreneurial judgment. According to a paper published in the Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, a startup produced a GLP compound in the late 1980s, and pharma giant Pfizer sponsored human trials that confirmed the drug’s efficacy in reducing blood glucose levels and slowing gastric emptying. One member of the startup team, Jeffrey Flier of Harvard, explained what happened next:

I was shocked when told that senior Pfizer leadership had concluded that there would never be another injectable therapy for diabetes other than insulin. What led them to this conclusion was never explained….I had been deeply impressed by their rapid decision to invest in our company, and I was equally dumbfounded by their decision to end their investment despite convincing early evidence of the program’s success. Confident in its own conclusions, Pfizer pulled the plug on the drug in 1991. The startup folded.

Under the terms of Pfizer’s agreement, the license remained with the Boston hospital where researchers discovered GLP-1’s mechanism and conducted the human trials. It was then acquired by Novo Nordisk in 1992, where scientists used it to develop what eventually became semaglutide, the pharmaceutical sold as Ozempic and Wegovy. While it is unclear whether, as Max Marchione put it on Twitter, the GLP-1 agonist data simply “sat in a filing cabinet for 30+ years,” Pfizer’s decision to abandon the project likely delayed its development…

Read more …

“ If he does tell the truth, he’s going to have to admit he lied to us previously.”

• How Fauci Can Still Face Prosecution Despite His Pardon (Margolis)

Joe Biden thought he handled it. Well, at least whoever wrote the preemptive pardon and signed it with the autopen did. That was supposed to be the insurance policy that kept the former NIAID director from being held accountable. The good ol’ get-out-of-jail-free card before Anthony Fauci was even charged with anything. Biden pitched it as protection from lawfare, but we all know what it really was, and we’ll soon get the truth, one way or another.


As you know, on her final day as Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard released a tranche of previously unreleased documents and communications laying out what many Americans have suspected for years. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, funneled millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars into dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab now widely believed to be the source of COVID-19. He did it.

And then he lied about it. “Before the COVID pandemic, Dr. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain of function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Gabbard said in a video she posted to X, “work which is now widely viewed as the source of the unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic.”

According to Gabbard, Fauci funded the research tied to Big Pharma’s multi-trillion-dollar pursuit of a universal vaccine, then pressured handpicked experts to promote a natural-origin narrative, deflecting blame from the Wuhan lab. Then, he used his media access to amplify his version of events while crushing any dissent. “These documents expose Fauci’s direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments on COVID-19 and how Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 when under oath, he denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research,” Gabbard said.

Compare that to what Fauci told the Senate in 2021, when he told Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.): “With all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” He said that under oath. The documents say otherwise. Independent journalist John Solomon argues that Fauci could still face prosecution, spelling it out in an interview with Bill O’Reilly.

“We know that in the end days of Joe Biden, Anthony Fauci got a pardon,” Solomon began. “He can’t be prosecuted for anything before January 20, 2025. But if Rand Paul puts him on the stand next week, as he’s going to compel him to do, and Anthony Fauci does not tell the truth this time in the body of evidence that’s there, he could be instantly prosecuted by the Trump Justice Department. If he does tell the truth, he’s going to have to admit he lied to us previously.”

Basically, Fauci, under oath again, has a choice: lie about what he did under oath and face prosecution, or admit he lied under oath before. Since Biden’s pardon only covered what Fauci did before Biden officially left office, if he commits perjury, there’s nothing that can protect him. It left him completely exposed to everything that comes after. With Gabbard’s documents on the table and Paul’s committee waiting, that reckoning is no longer hypothetical.

Both options for Fauci will be devastating for his legacy.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 1 2026

Jul 012026
 
 July 1, 2026  Posted by at 9:37 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  28 Responses »


Jessie Willcox Smith From The Princess and the Goblin by George MacDonald 1920


• Supreme Court Rules on Landmark Birthright Citizenship Case (Athena Thorne)
• Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order (ZH)
• Here’s How Devastating the Birthright Citizenship Ruling Is (Margolis)
• Trump Could End Most Birthright Citizenship With 1 Simple Trick (Thorne)
• Cheer Up! The Birthright Citizenship Case Moves Us Toward Inevitable Victory (TH)
• A New Deal for Presidents? (Turley)
• Trump Gives Remarks and Opinion on Three Supreme Court Decisions (CTH)
• Blue States Refuse to Join 250th Anniversary Celebration on the Mall (Turley)
• Latin American Countries Moving to the Right (Anderson)
• Supreme Court Makes a Big Ruling in Favor of Free Speech (Anderson)
• The Supreme Court Just Settled the Trans Athletes Debate (Margolis)
• Democrats Have Always Been Communists (Margolis)
• Euroclear Files Lawsuit To Block $231.5 Billion Recovery (TASS)
• NATO and Ukraine Seeking Weapons To Target Russian Airfields – Moscow (RT)
• Ukraine In Bed With Mexican Drug Lords (RT)
• Western Media Distorting Ukraine Battlefield Reality – Journalist (RT)
• Pusillanimity Brings War, Not Peace (Paul Craig Roberts)

 


 

https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/2071800878508421578?s=20 https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters/status/2071753263259496912?s=20 https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/2071712711738609807?s=20

 


 


Birthright Citizenship belogs in the 19th century. A time before airplanes.

• Supreme Court Rules on Landmark Birthright Citizenship Case (Athena Thorne)

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on the historic birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, on Tuesday morning. In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order, which had ordered that U.S. citizenship not automatically be conferred upon children born on U.S. soil whose parents are illegally present in the United States, or whose mother is visiting here legally but temporarily and whose father is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson join the Roberts opinion in the full decision. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented.


“Roberts concludes that children born to parents who are in the United States unlawfully or temporarily are ‘born in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ ‘Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth,'” wrote Supreme Court expert Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog’s live coverage of the announcement. In practice, the ruling means nothing changes, and the nation will continue as it has been doing. Namely, every baby born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, regardless of the status of the parents. Apparently, it’s too much to ask that parents have at least the most basic allegiance to or standing in our country before we bestow its greatest gift — citizenship — on their offspring.

Howe added, “As others have noted, Kavanaugh writes that Trump’s EO conflicts with the federal law ‘[u]nless and until Congress enacts new legislation,” potentially leaving the door open for Congress to tighten up citizenship rules. The ACLU originally filed the suit as a class-action lawsuit (Barbara v. Trump) on behalf of affected families. The lead plaintiff, “Barbara,” is a pregnant “asylum seeker” from Honduras, though the suit also represents other families of various residency statuses. Lower courts ruled for the plaintiffs, sending the case up the chain to the Supremes.

The court heard arguments in the case on April 1, 2026, notes a Congressional Research Service (CRS) legal sidebar: The question before the Court was whether Executive Order 14160 (E.O. 14160, or the E.O.), “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” is constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that codifies the Citizenship Clause. The EO stated that: “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Beyond the 14th Amendment, the case further examined the meaning of the phrase “domiciled residents” from the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, Wong Kim Ark’s parents had maintained a legal, permanent domicile in the U.S. for over 20 years. Though not citizens (people born in China were prohibited from naturalizing at that time), the parents were legally present and conducting business here, and not serving in diplomatic roles. The Trump administration argued that this situation contrasts with that of foreign nationals who are illegally present in the country. Trump’s signed E.O. 14160 on Inauguration Day 2025. The CRS sidebar explained the intent of the original order: The E.O. seeks to interpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause to limit who may be considered a U.S. citizen from birth. […]

The E.O. outlines two categories of persons that, in the view of the executive branch, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are excluded from the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of birthright citizenship: (1) a child whose mother was not lawfully present in the United States, and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, at the moment the child was born; and (2) a child whose mother was lawfully but temporarily in the United States, and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, at the moment the child was born. The E.O. asserts that children born in the United States to parents in either of these categories are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read more …

“In response to the ruling, President Trump wrote that it was “too bad for our Country,” but that Republicans can “easily make up for it in Congress through Legislation…”

• Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order (ZH)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order curbing birthright citizenship. President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2025. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)In a massive 194-page, 5-4 ruling, the Court affirmed a District Court ruling, holding that Executive Order 14160 – Trump’s attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present – violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson.


Justice Kavanaugh provided the sixth vote against the order while explicitly rejecting the majority’s constitutional theory, arguing the EO fails only because it conflicts with a 1940s immigration statute – leaving the door open for Congress, not the Constitution, to revisit the question.

In response to the ruling, President Trump wrote that it was “too bad for our Country,” but that Republicans can “easily make up for it in Congress through Legislation…”

Background
Birthright citizenship – the principle that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen – has stood as a foundational element of American law and identity for more than 150 years. Its modern constitutional anchor is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The clause was enacted primarily to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (which denied citizenship to black people) and to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. It established a clear rule of jus soli (citizenship by birth on the soil) with narrow historical exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or members of invading armies.

The Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark cemented this broad understanding. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legal residents but ineligible for naturalization under then-existing exclusionary laws, was ruled a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray’s majority opinion affirmed that the 14th Amendment codifies “the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country,” applying to children of resident aliens without regard to race or the precise immigration status of the parents (beyond the traditional exceptions).

For well over a century, this interpretation has governed practice: federal agencies, courts, and both political parties treated birth on U.S. soil as conferring citizenship almost universally, regardless of whether a parent was undocumented, a temporary visa holder, or a lawful permanent resident.

Read more …

“.. the senator who authored the relevant language in the 19th century made it clear that it was never intended to cover foreign nationals or the families of foreign diplomats.”

• Here’s How Devastating the Birthright Citizenship Ruling Is (Margolis)

The Supreme Court handed down some good rulings on Tuesday, but one of them, Trump v. Barbara, was truly stinking hot garbage, to put it as nicely as possible. It was one of the most consequential rulings in a generation, and if you’re not furious about it, you haven’t been paying attention. As my PJ Media colleague Athena Thorne put it, the Supreme Court ruled that “any basic skank who can sneak onto American terra firma and give birth is automatically the parent of a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and benefits that implies.” On The Five on Tuesday, Jesse Watters didn’t hold back in his reaction to the ruling.


“I’m angry,” he said. “Are you?” And that set the tone for everything that followed. He focused on Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent, which Watters described as a genuine alarm bell. Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, he noted, saw this for what it was — a case with enormous implications that the court essentially fumbled. “He said in his dissent, this was one of the most important cases the court’s ever seen, and we blew it,” Watters said. “He and Thomas were basically like, ‘Yeah, this devalues and degrades U.S. citizenship because it opens it up for anchor babies and for birth tourists.’” The example Watters used was, honestly, terrifying.

Under birthright citizenship as it currently stands, a Chinese Communist Party official could bring his pregnant wife to Guam, deliver the baby on American soil, then fly that infant back to Beijing, complete with a U.S. passport in hand. That child could grow up in China, get funneled through whatever the CCP wants him for, and then, at 18, have access to American welfare programs. He could vote. And theoretically, at 35, he could become eligible to run for president. It’s a scary thought, because yes, that’s what the decision would enable. “That’s the stupidest thing anyone ever thought of,” Watters said. “Literally.”

The historical context makes the ruling even harder to swallow. Watters noted that the senator who authored the relevant language in the 19th century made it clear that it was never intended to cover foreign nationals or the families of foreign diplomats. The amendment’s architect agreed. So did the president at the time, Ulysses S. Grant. “The guy that sponsored it, the guy that initiated, the architect of, this 14th amendment, the AG, the president at the time, Grant, all said, yeah, no foreigners, no visitors,” Watters said.

Of course, none of those men could have imagined international air travel. They couldn’t picture an enemy nation strategically flying pregnant women to American territory as a coordinated demographic tactic. The 14th Amendment was written in a world where the idea of a hostile foreign government exploiting birthright citizenship for generational gain was simply inconceivable. We don’t live in that world anymore.

“This was also before airplanes,” Watters pointed out, “so no one could imagine enemies of the United States flying here to have babies that 18 years later they could use against us to sway elections, soak up welfare, and then steal our defense technology. Because that’s what they do, they steal it.” And the Democrat Party? They’re not innocent bystanders in any of this. “The Democrats are in cahoots with this,” Watters said. “They like it cuz they like it for money and power.” Watters didn’t pretend there are easy outs. Congress won’t act. The court didn’t protect the country. So what’s left? “I think the DOJ has to ramp up prosecutions of birth tourism fraud,” he said. “And Trump’s gotta deport even more because this is demographic destruction.”

As bad as this decision was, there are ways to fix this. Let’s hope Trump gets it done.

Read more …

Don’t let pregnant women into the country.

• Trump Could End Most Birthright Citizenship With 1 Simple Trick (Thorne)

That was some disappointing poo from the Supreme Court on Tuesday about birthright citizenship, non? The court ruled that any basic skank who can sneak onto American terra firma and give birth is automatically the parent of a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and benefits that implies. It seems like a dark day for the republic, to be sure. But pause and catch your breath: If the outcome had been different, would the Democrats take “no” for an answer? Of course not! Democrats never take “no” for an answer. They keep pushing and cheating and indoctrinating and menacing and jiggling the handle every which way until they pass whatever disagreeable turd they’re trying to cram through.


We, too, can play that game. There is more than one way to skin a cat, after all. The justices say that babies born in our country to illegal aliens and birth tourists are U.S. citizens? Fine.What if these grasping, scofflaw women weren’t allowed into the country in the first place? Under the U.S. Code, the president has broad authority over who may enter our country. Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) (INA Section 212(f)) says: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

My AI research assistant tells me that “This gives the President wide latitude to define a ‘class’ of aliens and suspend or restrict their entry if he determines it serves U.S. interests (e.g., public health, welfare, preventing ‘birth tourism,’ or resource strain).” Why, yes, I’d say birth tourism and resource strain are substantial concerns of the U.S. in this instance. Trump would absolutely be within his rights to pen-and-phone an end to the pregnant invasion — perhaps even the child-bearing-age invasion. Will leftists stamp their feet and sue to stop it? Of course they will. But Trump has issued other travel bans in the past — and won in court.

During Trump’s first term, through EO 13780 and Proclamation 9645, he took action to ban entry from terrorist-sponsoring nations, including Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Venezuela. Leftists whined and sued, labeling the actions as Trump’s “Muslim Ban” in their petty way. But in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Supreme Court affirmed the president’s right to control harmful foreign travel into the U.S. And in 2020, Trump’s administration created rules that consular officers must deny B-1/B-2 tourist visas to pregnant applicants if they believed the woman’s primary purpose in traveling to the U.S is to birth an American baby.

“A broader executive order could expand this by declaring pregnant non-citizens (or those reasonably believed to be pregnant) as a class whose entry is detrimental, potentially covering visa issuance, admission at ports of entry, and exceptions (e.g., for diplomats, certain humanitarian cases, or lawful permanent residents),” notes my AI research assistant. Seriously, the president could do this as fast as White House counsel can write it up.

And frankly, I’m optimistic that this obnoxious and unfair Supreme Court ruling will light a fire under Republican voters’ butts the same way the Dobbs decision that overruled Roe v. Wade did for the Democrats, turning our much-anticipated 2022 midterms red wave into a barely discernible pink trickle. Barbara v. Trump will have the twin effects of demotivating blue voters while firing up red ones. (My colleague Scott Pinsker has a more in-depth analysis of the positive political fallout from this decision here.)

Read more …

It was close.

• Cheer Up! The Birthright Citizenship Case Moves Us Toward Inevitable Victory (TH)

Calm down about today’s birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. We were always going to lose. That was expected by anyone who understands how the courts work; what wasn’t expected is that this ruling was such a huge step toward eventual victory. You don’t have to be happy, but you don’t have to freak out. We’re winning.


Here’s the deal. Let me give it to you from the perspective of a politically informed lawyer, because I understand a little about how courts think, having been raised in a house with a mother who was a judge and appearing in courts all the way up to the Ninth Circuit for 30 years. It’s important you understand all the context to see where we are really at. It’s also important that you keep your feelings in check and not freak out like an emotionally incontinent teenage girl who catches her mom reading her diary.

Let’s talk about the 14th Amendment, which establishes birthright citizenship in the view of the very narrow majority. That “very narrow” part is key. For about 150 years, the common legal understanding of the 14th Amendment has been that it provides that, with narrow exceptions (such as the children of ambassadors), anyone born in the United States is an American citizen. And the text of the amendment can be read to support that. Now, you don’t have to like that, and you don’t have to agree with that reading—like most of you, I think the stronger argument is the one against birthright citizenship for children of transients and illegal aliens—but whether you agree or disagree, it’s not so legally ridiculous as to be disconnected from reality. And it was the reality until new scholarship, developed over the last couple of decades, began to seriously challenge it.

Let’s understand how the courts work. They don’t like changing things. They revere precedent. It takes a lot to get a new understanding of the Constitution to become the mainstream interpretation. Look at the Second Amendment. For a century, it was understood to allow pretty much any regulation of guns, as long as the regulation was “reasonable,” which it always ended up being in the eyes of the courts. The Heller decision completely changed that, and that decision was based on new scholarship. That’s the same process as we’re going through with birthright citizenship. We’re challenging something that’s been established, and you need to understand that our constitutional system is designed to make that hard.

Yeah, we lost today—barely. And that “barely” part is the good news. This was a 5–4 decision on the constitutional issue. Obviously, the three liberals voted against it because they will always vote the way that they perceive helps leftism. If illegal alien kids were believed to be aspiring Republicans, they would’ve been on the other side. None of these legal arguments that I’m talking about apply to them; they are hacks, and they don’t vote on principle. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett do vote on principle; their vote was entirely predictable to anyone familiar with how the courts work.

It’s just that their principle is wrong, reflecting the old and established view of the 14th Amendment that we are currently challenging with new scholarship. Lots of people are wrong, and it doesn’t make them the antichrist. Yes, I know all the arguments in favor of changing the understanding of birthright citizenship, and we don’t need to relitigate them here. Just understand that in any case, both sides believe in their arguments. What we need to do is make an effort to get folks nominated to SCOTUS who are more open to new challenges to old thinking because we are making a lot of new challenges to old thinking.

Frankly, I expected SCOTUS to punt completely and rule only on the executive order that President Donald Trump issued. There’s a principle in law that you try to resolve things without reaching constitutional issues if you can, and Trump challenged birthright citizenship with an executive order. Did he have the power to issue such an executive order? I expected the Court to rule that he did not and to avoid the constitutional issue entirely. If the Court decided to confront the constitutional issue, I expected a 7–2 ruling with Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in dissent. What we got was Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch both stepping in and accepting, at least to some extent, the new thinking on the 14th Amendment citizenship clause.

This is huge, people. It’s enormous, and the dramatic implications in favor of reforming the old idea of birthright citizenship are being swamped by people freaking out over what was an entirely predictable response to anyone who’s vaguely familiar with how courts work. .

Read more …

“That does not mean that Cook cannot be replaced, but it requires due process, not a “thank you for your attention.”

• A New Deal for Presidents? (Turley)

On Monday, Donald Trump sealed one of the most lasting parts of his legacy. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court reaffirmed and reinforced the authority of presidents to determine who will carry out the functions of the Executive Branch. In so doing, the Court overruled one of the long-standing limits of presidential power in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. Humphrey’s Executor is hardly a household name. Yet the demise of the 1935 case represents a seismic shift in the balance of power within our constitutional system. In this case, the court decided that President Trump had the right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.


For decades, scholars and jurists have questioned where the Court found the authority for Congress to create a hybrid creature like the FTC — part legislative and part executive, with officials protected from removal by a president. Various presidents have chafed at this limiting doctrine. But Trump pushed aggressively against the precedent and appointed three justices who would prove critical in ending Humphrey’s Executor after more than 90 years. In a separate case, Trump v. Cook, the Court ruled that the president could not fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.

Both the win and the loss were vintage Trump. The win because he was unrelenting in his assertion of inherent powers. The loss in part because he is equally unrelenting in his use of social media to carry out policy. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that more than a tweet and conclusory letter is demanded in such a removal from the Federal Reserve, which has always held a unique position in the government and prior cases. Roberts wrote, “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment — an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”

That does not mean that Cook cannot be replaced, but it requires due process, not a “thank you for your attention.” It is hard to overstate the transformation of the new executive branch during the Trump terms. The Slaughter case follows the Loper Bright decision, which ended the huge deference given to government agencies “interpreting” law to their own ends. Past Republican presidents have criticized the ““administrative state” that was iron-plated under the prior Chevron doctrine.

The result is that our government will remain markedly different from that of many of our allies, particularly the United Kingdom. In the UK, ministries operate with a considerable degree of independence and insularity. It is difficult for a prime minister to force through major changes when opposed by ministry civil servants.

Read more …

From Monday.

• Trump Gives Remarks and Opinion on Three Supreme Court Decisions

During an oval office event to highlight President Trump signing three executive orders informing all agencies of government that federal officials will not be enforcing any rule that blocks citizens from repairing or modifying their own vehicles, President Trump took questions from the media on today’s Supreme Court rulings.


Read more …

Divided.

• Blue States Refuse to Join 250th Anniversary Celebration on the Mall (Turley)

This morning, I discussed the upcoming Supreme Court decisions from the temporary Fox studio on the Mall, surrounded by the state pavilions. I was buoyed by the enthusiasm of the young National Guard members from Puerto Rico and Alaska. They are thrilled to be part of our 250th celebration. The only disappointment was the decision of 10 states—Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Pennsylvania—to decline to participate. Pennsylvania’s governor, Josh Shapiro, refused, but the state’s two senators stepped in to ensure their representation. It is an utter disgrace for these states and another manifestation of our age of rage.


All of these states cited transparent excuses over the cost of participating in our anniversary despite their lavish spending in other areas. Massachusetts is a particular insult. The home of John Adams and other colonial leaders elected to sit out the celebrations. Recently, we discussed how a Massachusetts church ended the long-standing celebration of the Fourth of July to focus on the “on-going process within the congregation to better understand our own whiteness.” John Adams once wrote his wife Abigail to predict that Independence Day would be:

“celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more.” Rather than Adams, Massachusetts now has figures such as Gov. Maura Healey, who balked at spending $100,000 to be counted among the states in the pavilion.

Gov. Shapiro did the same. This is a man who wants to be the next president of the United States but has opted out of participating, despite his state being home to our Independence Hall. It appears that he could not acquire space by simple adverse possession. Many people in Pennsylvania and across the country will not soon forget his ignoble stance or the two Pennsylvania senators’ efforts to ensure the state’s presence despite Shapiro’s efforts. These leaders decided to spread division at the very moment when we could overcome our differences to remember what we share as fellow citizens of this country.

They may see the rallying cry of “taxation without representation” replaced by “celebration without representation” for many disappointed voters. Despite the effort of blue states to boycott the celebration, tourists and participants appear to be having a ball. It is a beautiful space and filled with wonderful people from around our country. This morning I met Al Underwood, who was playing Paul Revere. He and his wife were delighted to participate and drove in from their home outside of Charlottesville. As these leaders in blue states sit out the celebrations, many of their citizens are rallying to support our unique republic.

E pluribus unum

Read more …

With USAID gone…

• Latin American Countries Moving to the Right (Anderson)

Peru officially announced that it finally has a new president on Monday: The more conservative candidate, Keiko Fujimori, won by a slim margin of 50.1% to 49.9%.

https://twitter.com/DatosAme24/status/2071701118162501956?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2071701118162501956%7Ctwgr%5Ee8498459cdd99d38217dab723019c94f940c10a7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fsarah-anderson%2F2026%2F06%2F29%2Fwe-need-to-talk-about-these-latin-american-countries-moving-to-the-right-n4954502


We are cautiously optimistic about this news. Normally, I’d celebrate this as another new right-leaning leader in the Western Hemisphere, but Peru is a bit of a mess. It’s had something like nine presidents over the last decade, but most of them have been impeached or have faced corruption scandals, congressional gridlock, and various other issues.

Fujimori also comes with a little baggage. Her father is a former Peruvian president, and she’s run for election something like four times. But many say she could be the game-changer and bring some stability to the nation, especially economically. She’s also likely to be a good partner to the United States. We’ll just have to see how it plays out.

The actual run-off election was held earlier this month, and it’s taken over three weeks to count the ballots. Fujimori has held the lead for much of that time, though Sanchez did for a while. That said, I couldn’t help but notice that many media outlets have been reporting her as the winner for weeks without actually waiting for the final tally. I’ve had several people ask me why I wasn’t reporting on it, and while I knew it was highly likely she’d win, it wasn’t confirmed. And that’s about the slimmest of slim margins you can have between two candidates in an already chaotic country — anything was possible.

It’s just like when I reported on the Colombian elections and how the more conservative Abelardo de la Espriella (“El Tigre”) defeated Gustavo Petro’s hand-picked commie candidate Iván Cepeda. In the days following the election, Petro did what he does and spent hours mouthing off about it on social media — blaming Israel, blaming the United States, etc. So many media outlets ran to report that the election was being contested, that El Tigre’s win would not be honored. I actually had a few of you go after me for being naive to think it would.

Well, if that’s the case, I’m still being naive. Petro has big plans for himself post-presidency, and that’s mostly what he cares about: himself. Due to sanctions Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Scott Bessent have placed on him or threatened him with, he won’t be able to do those things — I believe he’s mentioned traveling the world, giving talks on *checks notes* climate change and writing erotic poetry — and he knows all eyes are upon him. It’s why Trump endorsed El Tigre multiple times and Rubio congratulated him on his win almost instantly. A subtle reminder. Petro can talk all he wants, but he knows he needs to be on his best behavior if he wants his freedom after he leaves office in August. Even Cepeda wasn’t really playing along with his shenanigans and has officially conceded.

The current president of Colombia likes to talk. Most of the time, it should be ignored. Which leads me to something else. Some of you aren’t going to like this, but there’s another false story that’s going around about the Latin American elections that a lot of my colleagues in conservative media keep touting but that I feel like I need to correct. It goes something like this: the closing of USAID is why the region is swinging to the right.

While it would be fun if that were true, it’s not correct. I’d say the real influence was Nayib Bukele, followed by Javier Milei, and then Donald Trump. But we have to give the voters themselves a little credit because this was in the works before Trump was even re-elected in 2024. Back in February, I wrote an article called “The Real Reasons Why Latin America Is Moving to the Right.” I won’t rehash it all, but crime, economic frustration, and mass migration backlash were the top three reasons I listed.

Crime is certainly number one. People are tired of gangs and cartels taking over their communities and bringing violence with them. They saw how Bukele turned the so-called “Murder Capital of the World” into a safe, desirable place to be, and they wanted that for themselves. Nearly every single person I’ve spoken to over the past year or so who lives in or is from Latin America has hailed Bukele as a hero, claiming they want someone like him to fix this. And almost every single “right-wing” candidate who has been elected in Latin America in recent years has promised exactly that — some have even brought him on as a consultant.

Read more …

“The RNC has been preparing for this ruling, and we are ready to expand the ways we directly help and provide resources to Republican candidates across the country.”

• Supreme Court Makes a Big Ruling in Favor of Free Speech (Anderson)

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in a 6-3 decision that federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates violate the First Amendment, delivering a major victory for free speech and party operations and for Republicans. It should have an impact on the 2026 midterm elections. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, the justices overturned the 2001 Colorado II precedent, clearing the way for unlimited coordinated spending by parties. The ruling is expected to reshape the 2026 midterm battlefield by empowering official party committees over super PACs.


Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. The majority found that these caps are not narrowly tailored to the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. It effectively overruled the key aspects of the 2001 precedent FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II), noting that subsequent cases have applied stricter scrutiny and that other tools (earmarking rules, disclosure requirements) are sufficient to address circumvention concerns. Dissenting Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the decision opens the floodgates to corruption and that the majority was too quick to dismiss that.

Here’s some background on the case: In 2022, two Republican party committees — the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee — along with then-Senator JD Vance and then-Representative Steve Chabot, sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The Republican committees asserted that the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) unconstitutionally restricts their ability to coordinate campaign advertising with their own candidates. This coordination allows the party and its candidates to unify their political message and spend money more efficiently.

For example, in the 2021-2022 election cycle, the senatorial committee spent about $15.5 million and the congressional committee spent about $8.3 million on such coordinated expenditures, which primarily fund political advertising. The plaintiffs argue that developments since a 2001 Supreme Court decision, FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II), which upheld these same limits, have rendered that decision obsolete. Specifically, they point to changes in campaign finance law, the rise of “Super PACs,” and shifts in the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence as reasons the restrictions no longer pass constitutional muster.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As required by FECA for constitutional challenges, the district court certified the legal question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the FECA’s limits on coordinated campaign expenditures do not violate the First Amendment and denied both the facial and as-applied challenges brought by the plaintiffs.

“This is a massive victory for the First Amendment,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters. “Limiting the ability of political parties to work with and provide support directly to their candidates is not only ridiculous, it’s unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has now ruled. The RNC has been preparing for this ruling, and we are ready to expand the ways we directly help and provide resources to Republican candidates across the country.”

Ultimately, political parties can now coordinate more freely and spend without those previous dollar caps, shifting some power back to official party committees vs. independent super PACs and other outside groups.

Read more …

“The majority concluded that “Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex..”

• The Supreme Court Just Settled the Trans Athletes Debate (Margolis)

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to uphold state laws banning biological males from competing on female sports teams, delivering a tremendous victory for female athletes and the commonsense principle that biological sex matters in athletic competition. Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in West Virginia v. B.P.J., which the court combined with Little v. Hecox. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch each wrote a concurring opinion. The 6-3 decision found West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act and Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act both constitutional, rejecting claims that the bans violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A huge victory for women. Real women.


The majority concluded that “Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.” The term “sex” in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.That conclusion required no legal gymnastics, just common sense. In the end, biology is biology. Title IX was supposed to bring fairness into sports, and the transgender movement has been.

That the Supreme Court had to even weigh in on this is quite sad, just as it was sad that states had even to pass laws that made it clear that girls’ sports are for girls, not boys who pretend to be girls.So, how did we get here? Well, Idaho passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020, the first law of its kind in the country. West Virginia followed in 2021. Both laws faced immediate legal challenges from the radical left, yada, yada, yada, and it went before the Supreme Court.

Honestly, the challengers were doomed to fail. They built their case primarily on Bostock v. Clayton County, the 2020 ruling that extended Title VII’s sex discrimination protections to gay and transgender employees. Their argument was that if you can’t discriminate against a transgender person at work, you can’t exclude one from a sports team. If that explanation sounds stupid to you, you’re not alone. Biological sex is largely irrelevant to workplace performance, but it is directly relevant to athletic competition, and no amount of self-identification or plastic surgery can change your biology.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February 2025 directing the federal government to pull funding from schools that allow biological males on female sports teams, calling such policies “demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls.” His solicitor general, D. John Sauer, filed a brief calling both state laws “eminently reasonable.” Today’s ruling directly validates that position. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, which was hardly surprising at all. Jackson, for one, was unable to define what a woman is during her confirmation hearings in 2022 because, in her own words, “I’m not a biologist.” Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Kagan and Jackson.

The female athletes who intervened in both cases to defend these laws spent years fighting for the right to compete on a level playing field. The far left spent those same years calling them bigots for trying. Now that the highest court in the land has ruled on this issue, women can once again enjoy the fair opportunities they deserve under Title IX and not have to worry about biological males robbing them of awards and opportunities.

Read more …

Nope. It’s recent.

• Democrats Have Always Been Communists (Margolis)

There’s a reason the Democrat Party keeps repeating the same three words like a broken record, and it has nothing to do with strategy. On The Five Monday night, Jesse Watters pulled back the curtain on what’s really driving the chaos inside the party, and it’s not Trump derangement this time. It’s something the establishment spent decades swearing wasn’t there. So what changed? Watters laid out exactly how the Democrat Party actually operates behind closed doors, and it’s not the grassroots fantasy they sell on MS NOW or CNN.


“The Democrat party’s a machine, and the donors tell you what policy you have to do,” he said. “The superdelegates choose the nominee, and then they all get talking points.” That’s the part nobody wants to admit. The party isn’t a movement. It’s a top-down operation, where money decides the agenda and everyone else just repeats the script. “That’s why every day, you hear, ‘big tent, big tent, big tent,'” he said. “They all say the same thing.” It’s not organic enthusiasm. It’s a memo.

But the machine broke down, and Watters didn’t let the Democrats off easy for it. The country got fed up, and according to Watters, the party earned every bit of that anger through pure neglect. “They’ve screwed up, and the country’s now pissed,” he said. “The party’s pissed because what’d they do? They did nothing. They made life more expensive and just focused on Mexicans and Ukrainians, and that let the communists creep in.”

That last line is the whole story. While Democrat leadership obsessed over border policy fights and foreign aid packages, something far more radical was setting up shop inside their own coalition. Watters called out the years of denial that made this moment possible. “They have been denying they’ve been communists for decades,” he said. “No, we’re not communists. We love America. We’re for strong borders. We love the police.” Then, the second the socialist wing started winning primaries, the welcome mat came out. “All of a sudden, the communists start winning, and they’re like, ‘Big tent! Come on in!’” Watters said. “They don’t believe in anything except power.”

Remember the soul-searching after Kamala Harris lost? Watters does, and he’s not letting anyone forget how that played out. “What did we hear after Kamala lost? The Democrats need to define who they are, right?” he said. “You can’t just be anti-Trump. What do Democrats stand for?” For a year and a half, the plan was a working-class makeover. Football games. Backing off the trans agenda, funding police instead of defunding them. You know, pretend to be the party of the working class. “And now the commies start winning, and they’re like, ¡viva la revolucion!” Watters said. “That was fast.” “The Democrats have more in common with communism than the Republicans have in common with fascism,” Watters continued, “and they think they can cobble some winning coalition together.”

He added, “Kennedy is exactly right. The communists are going to steal the Democrat banner to get on the ballot,” Watters said. “They’re going to win. They’re in a caucus with them when it works.” After that comes the reckoning. “Here comes the purge,” Watters warned. “And the purge is going to be ugly, and the establishment is going to get purged.” That sets up a brutal internal war between cash and conviction, a fight Watters says the party simply cannot win. “You’re going to have money versus passion, and that’s a fight they have to have, but that’s a fight they can’t afford because they are dead broke.”

The mask is off. The only question now is how much damage the Democrat Party does to itself before voters figure out who’s really running the show. And they may find out sooner than you think.

Read more …

A lawsuit to avoid the inevitable.

• Euroclear Files Lawsuit To Block $231.5 Billion Recovery (TASS)

The Euroclear depository has filed a lawsuit in Belgium against the Bank of Russia in an attempt to block the enforcement of an 18.2 trillion ruble ($231.5 billion) Moscow Arbitration Court ruling over frozen assets, the Echo newspaper reported. On May 26, the Moscow Arbitration Court granted the central bank’s motion to enforce the ruling in its lawsuit against Euroclear.


In December 2025, the Central Bank of Russia filed an 18.2 trillion ruble lawsuit against Euroclear with the Moscow Arbitration Court, amid European Union plans to use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine. This amount includes frozen funds, the value of blocked securities, and lost profits. The Bank of Russia stated that the procedure for enforcing the decision using the defendant’s assets, including those located in foreign jurisdictions (both friendly and unfriendly), would be determined after the court ruling enters into legal force.

Read more …

“The bloc is integrating Kiev deeper into its structures, risking a direct conflict with Russia, Maria Zakharova has said..”

Not risking, deliberately creating.

• NATO and Ukraine Seeking Weapons To Target Russian Airfields – Moscow (RT)

NATO is openly helping Ukraine acquire weapons capable of reaching strategic targets deep inside Russia, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. The latest joint arms development tender shows that the US-led bloc is actively integrating Ukraine into its structures, moving dangerously close to an open confrontation with Moscow, she warned. Zakharova was referring to a €250,000 ($285,656) bidding contract announced in mid-June by NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT) – one of the bloc’s two strategic commands – in cooperation with the NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training and Education Center (JATEC). Created in February 2025, JATEC describes itself as “the first joint NATO-Ukraine organization in the NATO Command Structure.”


Although the contract does not mention Russia directly, it contains a clear reference to enhancing Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities with “solutions” capable of “persistent airport denial.” The project gives priority to various unmanned systems or loitering munitions capable of flying in signal-denied, electronic-warfare-contested environments and effectively striking runways, fuel reserves, and ground support facilities. The tender stipulates that any solutions must be ready for combat deployment within 12 months and should not require extensive training for operators, with submissions due by late July.

The contract shows that NATO is accelerating Ukraine’s integration into its command structures and military-industrial complex, Zakharova said on Monday. The bloc “is steadily losing what remains of its rationality and drifting into an increasingly high-risk zone” in an effort to turn Ukraine into a “testing ground” for emerging military technologies, she added. However, NATO strategists are “clearly underestimating” the risk of further escalation of the Ukraine conflict into a direct confrontation with Moscow, the spokeswoman said. “With their recklessly aggressive actions, the Ukrainian-NATO partnership is giving the Russian military additional grounds to pay heightened attention to any enterprises involved in the development and production of weapons used against our country.”

The development comes amid broader European militarization, with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte consistently urging member states to adopt a “wartime mindset.” Senior UK and German defense officials recently urged citizens to accept “difficult choices” on military spending as NATO states move to hit targets of 5% of GDP. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius claimed last year that Russia could attack a NATO member “as early as 2028,” insisting on the need for a costly military buildup.

Moscow has denied that it has any intention of attacking NATO countries, dismissing the claims as “nonsense” used to whip up anti-Russian hysteria. President Vladimir Putin warned last week that the bloc is no longer hiding its preparations for war with Russia and is using false claims about the supposed ‘Russian threat’ to justify its defense buildup. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in February that Russia has no reason to attack Europe unless it is attacked first. Earlier, he warned that the EU is sliding into a “Fourth Reich.”

Read more …

Corruption fits.

• Ukraine In Bed With Mexican Drug Lords (RT)

Ukraine is deepening its cooperation with Mexican drug cartels to profit from the flow of narcotics, including fentanyl, into the EU, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has said. US President Donald Trump has made combating fentanyl exports to the US one of his priorities, designating it as a ‘weapon of mass destruction’. In a statement on Monday, the SVR said the Ukrainian security agencies are deliberately showing leniency toward the growing flow of drugs from Latin America to Europe, adding that Kiev is facilitating the trade due to financial strain.


“The corruption-ridden regime of Vladimir Zelensky seeks to get additional profit, especially in the situation of the inability of Western sponsors to satisfy all of its insatiable demands,” the agency said, adding that Kiev also values cartel help in recruiting mercenaries for the military. The agency named Odessa’s ports as the main entry points for narcotics destined for the EU via Poland, Moldova, and Romania, suggesting that Ukraine’s inadequate and deeply flawed border and customs controls make it an attractive route. According to the SVR, Latin American cartels also have their eyes on Ukraine’s black market of weapons.

Ukraine has long served as a storage and transit hub for drugs destined for the EU, including heroin, which is typically transported along the Northern and Caucasus routes from Central Asia and the Caucasus, according to a 2024 analysis by the EU’s drug agency (EMCDDA) and Europol, though the conflict has since disrupted some of these routes. Fentanyl flowing from Mexico has for months been in the crosshairs of Washington. In December, Trump designated the drug – which kills tens of thousands of Americans annually – as ‘a weapon of mass destruction’. Fentanyl is considered even more dangerous than heroin and other opioid drugs, as a lethal dose can be as low as 2 milligrams – around 10 to 15 grains of table salt.

In September 2025, the Mexican newspaper Milenio reported that the Jalisco New Generation Cartel sent members to Ukraine to learn combat drone tactics. Footage reviewed by the outlet shows cartel units operating modified civilian drones with military-style discipline.

Read more …

The ongoing RT ban makes videos inaccessible.

• Western Media Distorting Ukraine Battlefield Reality – Journalist (RT)

Western media and politicians are misleading the public by hyping Kiev’s attacks on Russia while ignoring the devastating losses suffered by Ukrainian forces, independent Dutch journalist Sonja van den Ende has told RT. In an interview on Sunday, van den Ende argued that while headlines are dominated by Ukrainian strikes on Russian fuel refineries, which are presented as signs of Moscow’s weakness, there is little coverage of Kiev’s military casualties.


“About 2 million dead soldiers or dead servicemen from Ukraine. So this is not, this is not really headlines,” she stated, emphasizing that such figures are buried deep in articles if mentioned at all by Western outlets. Ukrainian regiment threatens journalists after report about training camp deathsREAD MORE: Ukrainian regiment threatens journalists after report about training camp deaths She added that coverage of strikes inside Russia serves as “a distraction” from Kiev’s problems.

Van den Ende said Kiev’s attacks, such as the drone strike on a vocational college dormitory in the town of Starobelsk in the Lugansk People’s Republic that killed 21 people, mostly teenage girls, are not being examined seriously by Western outlets. Around 50 foreign journalists from 19 countries visited the site at Moscow’s invitation, but the BBC and CNN refused to attend. The journalist also pointed to discussions in Germany and other EU states on cutting support for Ukrainian men residing there as another sign that officials privately understand the situation is worsening.

Ukraine has struggled to replenish its losses as Russian troops continue to advance steadily along the front line. The so-called “busification” campaign, in which conscription officers ambush men on the streets and outside their homes, often using violence against those who resist, has repeatedly sparked protests and outrage on social media.

The conscription crisis has prompted several of Ukraine’s European backers to review their asylum policies. Earlier this year, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz vowed to restrict protections for Ukrainians, arguing that young men were needed in their home country. Several news outlets also reported earlier this month that the European Commission had urged EU member states to introduce restrictions on accepting Ukrainian refugees.

Read more …

PCR insists Putin should have killed more Ukrainians.

• Pusillanimity Brings War, Not Peace (Paul Craig Roberts)

The naive and gullible men in the Kremlin were deceived by the Alaska agreement just as they were by the Minsk agreement. If they had read Trump’s Art of the Deal they would have learned how Trump was going to manipulate them.


It was totally clear to me in 2014 when Putin sat stupidly on his butt and permitted Washington to overthrow the Ukrainian government and install an anti-Russian Washington puppet that Russian inaction was leading to war. When Putin was forced into conflict with Ukraine by Washington and Europe eight years later, it was totally obvious that Putin’s slow-moving, restricted Special Military Operation would provide Washington and NATO ample time to get more and more involved and that the conflict that Putin thought could be limited to Donbas would widen and widen. And that is precisely what has happened.

Putin and Lavrov have said that Washington/NATO intend to turn Ukraine’s conflict with Russia into a war on Russia by the West. Despite finally acknowledging the reality that has been completely clear for 12 years, Putin still refuses to use the decisive force necessary to bring the conflict to a victorious end and stop the widening of the conflict. Putin is focused on gaining another kilometer in Donbas while Ukrainian drone attacks deep inside Russia increasingly disrupt Russian life and energy production and result in civilian casualties.

Having by his own inaction permitted the Ukraine conflict to widen out of control, Putin told military cadets in June that Russia’s nuclear forces will be strengthened and the fighting ability of the military improved in expectation of a war with Europe. This is a war that Putin’s pusillanimity has brought to Russia.

Apparently, Iran has learned nothing from Russia’s experience with Washington. Like Russia, Iran was maneuvered into peace talks that Washington had no intention of allowing to go anywhere. The function of peace talks is to trap Russia and now Iran in a process that prevents the decisive use of military force. Putin wanted negotiations more than he wanted a military victory. Iran was stopped from a decisive, conclusive victory by accepting a ceasefire.

It is inexplicable that any Iranian can possibly think there can be peace in the Middle East as long as the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel continues to be the foreign policy of Israel. It is extraordinary that during the 79 years that this agenda has been pursued no Muslim country has demanded that Israel be confronted with its aggressive agenda. Even today the Iranians have not demanded that the Greater Israel agenda be included in the peace negotiations. It seems clear that both Russia and Iran are more capable of avoiding reality than dealing with it. My conclusion is that two big wars remain on the agenda.

Among the legends that comprise World War II history is the explanation that Chamberlain’s pusillanimity at Munich caused the war. Putin has repeated what historians regard as Chamberlain’s fatal mistake. I myself do not accept the “peace in our time” explanation. World War II resulted from the British guarantee to Poland and from the British and French Declaration of War on Germany. But the Munich explanation has been the official explanation. Putin himself believes the Munich explanation of the war. Why did Putin repeat Chamberlain’s alleged mistake?

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 30 2026

Jun 302026
 
 June 30, 2026  Posted by at 9:15 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  25 Responses »


Titian Venus of Urbino 1534


• Iran Foreign Ministry Contradicts Trump: No Talks will be Held (ZH)
• SCOTUS: The Chief Executive Is, You Know, the Chief Executive (Green)
• The Supreme Court Just Californicated Our Elections (Matt Margolis)
• Alito Warns Supreme Court Opened Pandora’s Box for Election Fraud (Margolis)
• Supreme Court Decides Crucial Mail-in Ballot Case (Salgado)
• Supreme Court Mail-In Ballot Decision Leaves Trump With a Simple Message (Arcand)
• SCOTUS Just Let a Rigged Verdict Against President Trump Stand (Margolis)
• Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid To Appeal E. Jean Carroll Verdict (CNBC)
• ‘You’re Next!’: Democrats Discover the Mob has a Mind of its Own (Turley)
• The Most Engangered Species of All is White People (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Scott Bessent Bullish on Trump Economy, Predicts 3% Growth, 2% Inflation (JTN)
• Anthropic’s Exit a Wake-Up Call for Europe’s AI Ambitions (Lyman)
• It’s All They’ve Got Now (James Howard Kunstler)
• Starmer Eyeing Top NATO Position – Observer (RT)
• Biden’s Own Party Heckled Him During a Speech (Margolis)
• Raising Children in the 21st Century (CTH)

 


 

https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2071324683992264972?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2071309367434211746?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2071299405211177385?s=20

 


 


Trump doesn’t want to restart the bombing. Iran knowa it. And uses it.

• Iran Foreign Ministry Contradicts Trump: No Talks will be Held (ZH)

Earlier Monday a White House official said the Witkoff-Kushner delegation was en route to Qatar for Iran talks, but it’s looking like Tehran will give the US a cold shoulder. Iran state Tasnim is citing Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, who says: “We will not hold any negotiation meetings at any level with the American side in the coming days,” directly contradicting prior reports coming out of Washington. Bloomberg is also confirming the new statement out of the Iranian side. President Trump himself early Monday morning stated on Truth Social: “Iran has requested a meeting. It will take place tomorrow in Doha.” Also Fars has separately stated within the last hours:


“No nuclear negotiations have been held with the US so far, and there will be no negotiations on nuclear issues until Iran’s conditions are met.”

More latest: “IRAN SAYS DELEGATION WILL VISIT QATAR BUT RULES OUT US TALKS” So it seems Witkoff and Kushner will merely meet with Qatari and Pakistani mediators? It remains an open question whether the Iranians will be present in Doha at all. It could be Tehran is issuing the contradictory messaging in order to keep leverage and pressure up, or else to try and humiliate the White House. The Islamic Republic has been warning that more US military action against Iranian territory and in the Hormuz Strait could result in Iran walking away from the negotiating process altogether.

Witkoff-Kushner Delegation En Route to Qatar, Iran Mum
Bloomberg reports Monday that Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will meet with Qatar’s prime minister on Tuesday to discuss the talks with Iran, also citing Axios which spoke to a White House official. Will the Iranians actually be there? On Wednesday US and Iranian technical teams will meet separately with Qatari and Pakistani mediators, Axios says Witkoff and Kushner will travel to Doha today: Axios. So it seems the US delegation is in motion, even as Tehran has as yet offered no concrete public confirmation that an Iranian high level team is in route.

Read more …

The Supremes are largely in favor of Trump, but they let some nasty pieces slip. The mail-in ballot scene is not tenable. And neither is E. Jean Carroll.

SCOTUS acts as if it not part of what it regulates. Wrong.

• SCOTUS: The Chief Executive Is, You Know, the Chief Executive (Green)

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” read the very first sentence of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution defining the executive branch of the United States government. “And it means what it says,” the Supreme Court basically ruled Monday morning in a little case called Trump v. Slaughter. Let me set the stage for today’s momentous decision as briefly as possible. I might even have a little fun with it.


Early in his second term, President Donald Trump fired two Democrat commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter. The 1914 Progressive-era law establishing the FTC says commissioners can only be fired for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Trump — much to his credit, but stick a pin in that thought — made no such claim against either Bedoya or Slaughter. He fired them because he didn’t want them working for him any longer. Slaughter, whose resumé consists of legal and government positions having apparently nothing to do with trade, sued.

“The President illegally fired me from my position as a Federal Trade Commissioner, violating the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent,” she claimed.The precedent Slaughter referred to is the 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, upholding Congress’s authority to protect certain executive branch roles — like FTC commissioners — from getting the presidential heave-ho without cause.

So the way I see it, two things were at stake in Trump v. Slaughter. The first is the separation of powers issue concerning Article II, Section 1. Is executive power vested in the President of the United States of America, or can Congress create an executive branch position only partly within the executive power? The second was the precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States involving just the FTC almost a century ago.

And Another Thing: Sorry-not-sorry about the headline, but the decision in Trump v. Slaughter was just so gobsmackingly obvious to anyone but the most dedicated progressive that it amused me to sum it up in dated Valley Girl-speak. By firing Bedoya and Slaughter at-will instead of for cause, Trump launched a frontal attack on Humphrey’s — and succeeded.

Today, in a six-to-three decision, the Supreme Court upheld the notion that the president is the master of his domain, and effectively obliterated Humphrey’s. You can guess which six and which three, I’m sure. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and the last lines read, “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.” That right there is the crux of the issue. This is from my former colleague, Tyler O’Neil: Well said.

The whole notion of “independent agencies” is, in this amateur’s opinion, anathema to the Constitution. If there’s a legal foundation propping up the progressive administrative state existing outside the will of the voters, it’s the idea that there can be administrators immune to public pressure expressed by the only nationally elected official in the entire U.S. government — the President of the United States. Today, SCOTUS potentially blew apart that foundation, which very well might have been the White House’s goal from the start.

Read more …

“Election Day used to mean something. After Monday, it doesn’t.”

• The Supreme Court Just Californicated Our Elections (Matt Margolis)

For most of us, Election Day is supposed to mean Election Day. Not Election Week. Not Election Month. On Monday, the Supreme Court decided that it no longer matters. In a 5-4 decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court ruled that federal election-day statutes do not stop Mississippi from counting mail-in ballots: “The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.” Mississippi passed that five-day grace period back in 2020 as a COVID-19 emergency measure.


Yet six years later, the “emergency” is still here for some reason, and now it has the Supreme Court’s blessing. Federal law has set a single, uniform Election Day since 1845, with Congress extending the same rule to congressional races in 1872. The Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, a Mississippi voter, and a county election official all sued, arguing that a state can’t quietly turn one day into a week just because counting mail-in ballots is inconvenient. A three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit agreed with them. The full Fifth Circuit declined to revisit that ruling, over a five-judge dissent, and Mississippi ran to the Supreme Court instead.

Mississippi’s lawyer, Solicitor General Scott Stewart, told the justices that states have broad authority over how elections are run and that none of this matters because voters make their final decision by Election Day anyway. Paul Clement, representing the challengers, made the obvious point that when Congress created Election Day, casting a ballot and the government actually receiving it were “so inextricably intertwined” that “no one would have thought of one without the other.” In other words, a vote doesn’t count until officials have it in hand. That used to be common sense, but it got lost on a majority of the court.

It was widely expected that this ruling would go the other way. During oral arguments, which lasted more than two hours, a majority of the justices sounded as if they agreed with Clement. Then the actual ruling came down, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s liberal wing to hand Mississippi the win anyway. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, with Brett Kavanaugh signing on in part. They were right, and it didn’t matter.

Here’s what makes this ruling so infuriating: We’ve already seen what this kind of system produces. Look at the recent Los Angeles mayoral race, where Spencer Pratt held a comfortable second-place finish, putting him on track for a November runoff against Karen Bass. Then the mail-in ballots kept trickling in, Nithya Raman posted a mathematically improbable surge, Pratt’s lead evaporated, and two Democrats walked into the runoff instead. That’s not an accident. That’s what happens when “Election Day” becomes a suggestion instead of a deadline.

More than a dozen other states have laws just like Mississippi’s, which means this ruling isn’t a one-state curiosity. It’s a green light. Expect more late-arriving ballot drops, more “improbable surges,” and more races that get decided long after voters went home thinking it was over. This case may have started in Mississippi, but it is going to make elections in America look a lot like California’s. Election Day used to mean something. After Monday, it doesn’t.

Read more …

“..more opportunity for fraud and more uncertainty injected directly into the system Americans are supposed to trust..”

• Alito Warns Supreme Court Opened Pandora’s Box for Election Fraud (Margolis)

The Supreme Court just made it a lot easier for late-arriving mail-in ballots to count, and Justice Samuel Alito wants you to know exactly what that means for the integrity of your vote. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that federal law permits states to count non-military mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, authored the majority opinion. Alito wrote the dissent, and he wasted no time laying out why the ruling should worry every American who still believes in free and fair elections.


Alito then argued that the decision “leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections.” We all know he’s right. We’ve been covering the problems with mail-in ballots for years, and Alito also backed up his claim with receipts. Alito pointed to a bipartisan commission from 2005, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, that concluded absentee voting was “the largest source of potential voter fraud” in American elections. Alito noted that “diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud.”

Alito’s dissent goes beyond merely citing an old commission report. He laid out, in detail, why mail voting is inherently riskier than voting in person. “When someone votes by mail, it is harder for officials to verify the identity of the person requesting and completing the ballot,” he wrote. “Mail voting also presents a greater opportunity for voter manipulation, a more vulnerable chain of ballot custody, and a diminished ability to detect improprieties in real time.”

Alito warned that letting absentee ballots “pour in over the days and weeks after election day,” while preliminary results are already public, “creates greater opportunity for fraud and risks further undermining the public’s confidence in election integrity.” He even quoted Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s warning that when “thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the result of an election,” then “charges of a rigged election can explode.”

Alito also flagged a mess of unresolved legal questions the ruling raises, including whether ballot-recall services and the Postal Service’s or FedEx’s recall policies now violate Election Day statutes as applied to absentee ballots. He concluded that the majority’s decision “opens Pandora’s box” for state legislatures trying to figure out what the law actually permits going forward.= Republicans didn’t waste time reacting. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) called the ruling “a shockingly wrong” decision. Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.) called it “disastrous,” warning that the decision “guarantees we’ll keep drifting away from” Election Day “as our sacred elections get bogged down by endless mail-in ballots and never-ending counts.”

The Democrat Party will tell you this ruling is about expanding voting access. That’s a total crock. Alito’s dissent makes clear what it’s really about: more opportunity for fraud and more uncertainty injected directly into the system Americans are supposed to trust. Pandora’s box is open now, and the worst part is, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett helped make it happen.

Read more …

“… the court ruled 5-4 in favor of allowing Mississippi to count ballots received up to five days after Election Day ..”

• Supreme Court Decides Crucial Mail-in Ballot Case (Salgado)

The U.S. Supreme Court has finally handed down a ruling on a vitally important mail-in ballot counting deadline case. The decision comes amid controversy over election results altered by alleged mail-in ballots in California.


Unfortunately, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of allowing Mississippi to count ballots received up to five days after Election Day. This is a disaster, obviously a huge opportunity for fraud, an encouragement not to count expeditiously, approval for ballots not mailed in time and possibly harvested, and also indirectly ensures other states like California will count until they get the results authorities want. It was a very disappointing decision from SCOTUS, especially given our supposed conservative majority.

Watson v. Republican National Committee addressed whether federal election-day statutes in 2 and 3 U.S. Code preempt state laws that permit election officials to count ballots allegedly cast by election day but received afterward. Michael Watson, Mississippi’s secretary of state, was the petitioner. Democrats — who love to railroad states on parental rights and free speech — are shrieking “states’ rights” in this case. Republicans, in contrast, are pointing out that counting ballots received after election day has nothing to do with constitutionality or lawful state election systems, but rather is an excuse for facilitating fraud.

The case’s importance came into focus with the early July elections in California. A week of Democrats “counting” and miraculously discovering more of a few million ballots in California finally put Democrat Xavier Becerra ahead of Republican Steve Hilton in the gubernatorial race. Meanwhile, distant third socialist Nithya Raman suddenly shot ahead of registered Republican Spencer Pratt for the Los Angeles mayoral runoff, days after Election Day.

DDHQ did confirm at last that Hilton would still be advancing to the general election, but a sudden series of statistically improbable drops managed to shove Pratt out of his second-place slot against Democrat Mayor Karen Bass. And yet, California still went on “counting.” The state accepts ballots that arrive after Election Day. Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, called the state a “fraudsters’ paradise.”As legal expert Jonathan Turley said, “As the Supreme Court readies its decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee (on whether to require votes by ‘election day’ in federal elections), the dysfunctional system in California is not helping those who want states to have the final say on such deadlines.”

“If we want fair and secure elections, Election Day should mean exactly what it says, which is why this decision makes it even more imperative that Congress pass the SAVE America Act,” said RNC Chairman Joe Gruters. “Democrats are inviting chaos at the ballot box by allowing elections to drag on for days and weeks after voters cast their ballots. Republicans are not going to be deterred by this decision, and the RNC will keep fighting to have elections end on Election Day as Americans want.”

When the original states ratified the Constitution, there was one Election Day. The whole process we have now of voting for months and using mail-in ballots and such nonsense would have absolutely horrified the Founders. They would also have understood what Democrats deny now, that such a system is all about creating a lot of opportunities for fraud.

Read more …

SAVE!

• Supreme Court Mail-In Ballot Decision Leaves Trump With a Simple Message (Arcand)

President Donald Trump called the Republican National Committee’s Supreme Court loss on Monday “tremendous,” and he used it as an opportunity to push for the SAVE America Act once again. bThe court ruled that states are allowed to count mail-in ballots that were obtained after Election Day, as long as they were postmarked before that day. Specifically, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion of the court’s 5-4 decision that “federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.”


The president wrote on Truth Social that “it is more important than ever to pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,” which includes documentary proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration and limits for mail-in ballots, with workarounds if somebody is disabled, ill, traveling, or deployed. “The House of Representatives has approved this vital Act, THREE TIMES,” Trump added, before saying that the Senate “seems unable to do so.” “In a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th, all Dumocrats, and our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY. There can be no more excuses,” he wrote.

Collins has been supportive of the federal elections proposal; however, she voted against a push to attempt to attach to the “Secure America Act” reconciliation bill earlier this month, according to Fox News. Meanwhile, Cassidy has also been supportive of the bill, but he recently expressed skepticism about its ability to pass. “There are not the votes,” the Louisiana Republican told “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on CBS News on Sunday. In response to Trump’s post on Saturday, Cassidy, will not be returning to the upper chamber after losing his primary, said it’s “it’s irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act.”

Some Republicans, like Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), have stressed the need to attach the bill to whatever legislation they possibly can. “Let’s add SAVE to the Housing bill. Let’s add SAVE to FISA Reauthorization,” Banks posted to X. “Let’s add SAVE to a new Reconciliation bill. We must pass the SAVE America Act.” “We must secure our elections once & for all,” he added.

Read more …

“Carroll claims, without any evidence, that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store ..”

• SCOTUS Just Let a Rigged Verdict Against President Trump Stand (Margolis)

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it won’t touch a 2023 jury verdict ordering President Donald Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll $5 million for sexually abusing and defaming her. While the court has handed Trump several key wins on challenges to his presidential actions, the refusal stings precisely because it’s the first time since he returned to office that he’s asked the justices to step into a personal legal fight, and they walked away from it. Carroll claims, without any evidence, that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store back in 1996.


She didn’t go public until 2019, and when she did, she didn’t go to the police; she put it in a book. Trump has always said the story was fabricated to sell that book, and everything she’s done since has just given credence to the accusations that she’s just a grifter. Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to step in, warning that it’s “deeply damaging to the fabric of our Republic for President Trump, in the midst of a historic presidency, to have to take his focus away from his singular and unique duties as Chief Executive to continue fighting against decades-old, false allegations and the myriad wrongs throughout this baseless case.” They added, “This mistreatment of a President cannot be allowed to stand.”

Trump’s legal team also argued Carroll sat on her “implausible, unsubstantiated assertions” for more than two decades to “maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.” They went further, pointing out that her account “precisely matches the plotline from an episode of one of admittedly her favorite TV shows, ‘Law & Order.'” A story that lines up that neatly with a television script deserved more scrutiny than it got, and that’s before you even get to the rest of Carroll’s track record, including a paid walking tour that conveniently started at the exact spot she claims Trump attacked her.

But the key part of Trump’s case wasn’t about Carroll’s lack of credibility. It was about what the jury never should have heard in the first place. His lawyers argued that jurors were wrongly allowed to hear testimony from two other women accusing Trump of assault, along with the 2005 Access Hollywood recording of Trump bragging about grabbing women. None of that evidence belonged anywhere near a trial about a specific 1996 allegation, and letting it in front of a jury all but guaranteed the outcome before the case even started.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals waved off those objections in 2024, ruling that “taking the record as a whole and considering the strength of Ms. Carroll’s case, we are not persuaded that any claimed error or combination of errors in the district court’s evidentiary rulings affected Mr. Trump’s substantial rights.” Now the Supreme Court has let that ruling stand without explanation.

This isn’t even Trump’s only Carroll headache. A separate 2024 jury ordered him to pay her $83.3 million over public statements disputing her account, a verdict that survived three separate appeals. His lawyers are now drafting a Supreme Court appeal in that case too, which was made possible by a special New York law that opened a limited window for sexual abuse survivors to sue over decades-old claims, a law tailor-made for exactly this kind of lawsuit, which Carroll helped make happen.

Carroll built an entire financial windfall on what was clearly a fiction, and the courts have signed off on every dollar of it. The Supreme Court had a chance to ask hard questions about evidence that should never have reached a jury. It chose not to, and Carroll cashes the check anyway.

Read more …

A TV show. It shows justice as non-existent.

• Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid To Appeal E. Jean Carroll Verdict (CNBC)

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would not hear an appeal by President Donald Trump of a New York federal court jury’s verdict awarding the writer E. Jean Carroll $5 million for having been sexually abused and defamed by Trump. Trump separately was found civilly liable by another Manhattan federal court jury for having defamed Carroll. She was awarded $83.3 million in that case, which Trump is appealing at a lower federal appeals court.


The Supreme Court did not explain why it rejected Trump’s request that it hear his appeal of the $5 million verdict from the 2023 trial, as is typical for such orders. None of the justices, three of whom were appointed to the high court by Trump, issued a written dissent to the decision. Trump’s lawyers said the trial judge in the case improperly allowed testimony from two other women who said they were targets of sexual misconduct by Trump.

Carroll, in a 2019 New York magazine article, first publicly alleged that Trump had raped her in a dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s. She later filed a civil lawsuit alleging rape and that he had defamed her when he denied her claims. A judge in May 2023 found that Trump had sexually abused Carroll and defamed her. CNBC has requested comment from Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, as well as from the White House and Trump’s attorney in the Supreme Court appeal, Michael Martinich-Sauter.

Read more …

“Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”

• ‘You’re Next!’: Democrats Discover the Mob has a Mind of its Own (Turley)

“You’re next!” This chant, at the victory celebration of the Democratic Socialists this week, was a message not for the oligarchs or the billionaires, but for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and the Democratic establishment. They were threatening that Jeffries would be the next to lose his House seat to a socialist candidate. It was a scene that has recurred throughout history, as establishment leaders are overtaken by the very mobs they sought to use for their own purposes.


For years, Jeffries has joined other Democrats in fueling the rage on the left in the hopes of becoming the next House Speaker. Whether calling for supporters to “fight in the streets,” denouncing the Supreme Court as “illegitimate” or posting an image of himself brandishing a baseball bat, Jeffries sought to portray himself as a class warrior worthy of the mob’s support. Other Democratic leaders followed suit — especially Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. It was Schumer who yelled threats at conservative Supreme Court justices in front of the court. A deranged man triggered by such rhetoric in the media later attempted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Schumer and others portrayed their opponents as Nazis who threaten the very existence of democracy, and they stoked class conflict to inspire resentment for the wealthy.

Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison — now Minnesota’s attorney general — celebrated that Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump and his supporters. Figures like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) (who is reportedly worth half a billion dollars due to his wife’s inherited fortune) have attempted to ride the rage wave by advocating a billionaire’s tax that is presumptively unconstitutional. By the time these establishment figures realized their armchair-revolutionary rhetoric would not convince the mob, it was too late.

Jeffries and figures like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had endorsed candidates such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who perhaps more than anyone else personified the problem. He was the attack dog of the establishment, fueling rage and promising a spate of impeachments. But what the left saw was a trust-fund baby who had inherited a fortune, owns three houses, and has publicly pledged to use his inheritance to fund his reelection. He came across as the Democratic Richie Rich, and he lost on Tuesday by more than 30 points.

In my book Rage and the Republic, I discuss how these Democratic leaders are following the same self-destructive pattern of prior establishment figures in history who thought that they could use mobs against their opponents while hoping that they would be overlooked.

The American and French Revolutions were contemporary movements based on Enlightenment principles. But whereas our Revolution went on to become the world’s oldest and most stable republic, the French Revolution became the blood-soaked Terror. The French Revolution was not some spontaneous uprising of the proletariat or underclass. It was led by relatively affluent figures on the left, from aristocrats to journalists to lawyers. Maximilien Robespierre, who would later declare terror a virtue, was a lawyer who helped organize the revolutionary Jacobins.

These educated and affluent figures turned to working-class radicals as their muscle to terrorize their opponents. And not long after executing aristocrats and clergy, the radicals turned on the Jacobins themselves. “Moderates” were sent to the guillotine by Robespierre and his henchmen as they clung to power. But eventually, the mob came for them, too. After the Terror, French writer Jacques Mallet du Pan wrote, “Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”

After candidates endorsed by socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani easily swept aside the establishment candidates in Jeffries and Schumer’s backyard, politicians and pundits began to panic. They never imagined the mob would turn on them. Even liberal media figures such as Ezra Klein and pandering academic figures have become targets of the left. Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who has called for the effective trashing of the U.S. Constitution, had law students staging protests in his own home.

Others have sought to stay at the front of the mob. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) denounced the lengthy sentences handed down to nine violent Antifa figures in Texas for their roles in the ambush and attempted murder of a police officer who had responded to the disturbance they were creating at an ICE facility. The officer, Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, barely survived a bullet to the neck.

Read more …

“.. government-imposed multiculturalism that is a far greater threat to white existence than the threats posed by previous wars of conquest…”

• The Most Engangered Species of All is White People (Paul Craig Roberts)

Hanne Herland, the executive director of the highly regarded European News Service based in Norway, The Herland Report, reports that the BBC and the rest of the anti-white British presstitute media have yet to report the week-old Lowe Report’s findings that for 30 years British governments covered up multiple repeated gang rapes of a quarter of a million pre-teen white British girls, and then had them sodomized by dogs. The police would not act, and the parents were helpless.


If the parents made too much of a fuss, the parents, not the rapists, would be investigated for racist hate speech for accusing oppressed black people. The whore British media protected the criminals that corrupt British governmenrts permitted to walk unopposed into Britain by refusing to report the gang rapes. Now the whore British media refuses to report the Lowe Report. The British people know about it, but government and media denial deprive the facts of official status.

The death toll for white ethnicities came from decades of indoctrination that established the belief that there is no guilt in the entire world but white racist guilt and gentile anti-semitic guilt. White people are more demonized than Jews were by Nazis. One might have thought that hundreds of thousands of British fathers and mothers would have armed themselves with whatever weapons they could find and hunted down and killed the rape gangs. And also the whore media. The parents could have killed the police who protect the rape gangs, taken their weapons, and shot down the immigrant-invaders in the streets. They might have cleaned out the BBC and the rest of the scum British media as well.

But they didn’t. The ethnic British, like white ethnics everywhere, have been demonized for so many decades that white ethnics have lost the self-confidence necessary if one is to protect oneself, one’s children, and one’s family. This undeniable fact is why I recently wrote “The 21st Century is the Last Era of White People.” People with no will to survive will not survive. The white liberals’s demonizations of white people for decades have destroyed the self-belief of white ethnicities and broken their will to survive. Exampes abound. The ethnic French people are afraid to elect Marine Le Pen, who speaks for them, because they believe they would be electing a racist.

What we are witnessing in Britain, indeed all over the tiny part of the world that is white ethnic, is a threat to existence of white ethnicities by government-imposed multiculturalism that is a far greater threat to white existence than the threats posed by previous wars of conquest. And there is silence. No warnings have been heeded. Not Enoch Powell’s warning to the British, not Jean Raspail’s warning to the French, not Wilmot Robertson’s warning to Americans. All efforts to wake up white ethnics whose insouciance is dooming them to extermination have been unsuccessful.

The white ethnicities are too busy scrolling their cell phones. Moreover, they lack the will to recognize their danger. They have been too indoctrinated against themselves to confront an existential threat. Not even liberal progressive white people get a pass. They also “perpetuate racial harm” to people of color Robin Diangelo, a professor of education at the University of Washington and a “facilitator for a quarter of a century on issues of racial and social jusice,” assures us in Nice Racism. As racism is regarded by white liberals as the worst of all possible crimes and as aversive racism is allegedly inhernt in white genes, the only way to end racism is to end white people. It implies a holocaust on a wider scale than the one attributed to Hitler.

Their danger is illiustrated to white ethnicities daily, but they turn away from reality and find comfort in false reality. Essentially, white ethnicities lack the self-belief and the moral strength to save themselves and are actively engaged in turning power over to immigrant-invaders. They are too weak and full of indoctrinated guilt to survive. “Massive Racism against Whites: UK Rape Gang Inquiry Report shows 250,000 British girls raped but the Media deems it Not Newsworthy” https://hannenabintuherland.com/currentaffairs/massive-racism-against-whites-uk-rape-gang-inquiry-report/

I have been writing about the inability of white ethnics to defend themselves for many years. I have never had a response to my columns reporting mass rapes of Scandanivian and British females, and sometimes little boys. No white liberal has written: “This is awful. What can we do?”

No feminist has written: “What can we do to protect women and pre-teen girls from gang-rapes?”

No white liberal has written: “Out multicultural ideology was a mistake. How do we recover?”

No American conservative, no “white supremist” has asked what do we do to save ourselves.

Not a word. The weak-minded, weak-willed white ethnics hide their heads in the sand. When I speak it is like speaking to an empty room. This is why I have concluded that white ethnics are doomed. They have been too indoctrinated against themselves by their enemies to survive. Their demonization is institutionalized in the educational system and is finding its way into criminal justice systems. There are more British citizens in prison for complaining about the rape of their children than there are immigrant-invaders who raped the children.

The attack on white ethnicity is two-pronged. Not only can you be imprisoned for racism, but also for anti-semitism. The “privilege” that white ethnicity has is to be prosecuted for being white gentiles. The lack of organized resistence suggests that white ethnicities have accepted their fate. The immigrant-invaders see this and grow bolder. Meanwhile white ethnicities prepare their final war against themselves as the US and Europe prepare for war against Russia.

Read more …

By year’s end.

• Scott Bessent Bullish on Trump Economy, Predicts 3% Growth, 2% Inflation (JTN)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is confident the United States will weather the Iran conflict and a temporary spike in gas prices and finish 2026 with economic growth above 3% while hitting the Federal Reserve’s 2% inflation target. Bessent told Just the News that the recent revision upwards of the Gross Domestic Product is one of many signs the economy is still strong.”The president rightly believed that Iran was an existential danger, and had to be dealt with. It was a 90-day intervention there, but the economy, our economy, did the best in the world in terms of any major economy that pushed back on the naysayers, and first quarter, just got revised up to 2.1%,” Bessent said during an interview Friday on the Just the News No Noise TV program.


“I think that we are going to print more than 3% growth for the year, and importantly, the energy-generated inflation, crude oil prices today are lower than they were on February 27,” he added. For comparison, real GDP growth in 2025 was 2.1%, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Bessent also predicted that gasoline prices would “continue coming down” for the summer driving season. “We will be back towards the Fed’s 2% inflation target, and the message is job growth has been substantial. Moving into April, until April, we had seen real wage growth for working Americans,” he said.

“We’re going to get back on that track to try to help the American people recoup some of their big affordability losses under the Biden administration, where it was the worst inflation in 48 years,” he added.

Read more …

Add that to Europe’s perils: no AI.

• Anthropic’s Exit a Wake-Up Call for Europe’s AI Ambitions (Lyman)

After months of debate in Europe on how to limit AI, Anthropic’s limits on its highest level systems is shining a light on Europe’s lack of large AI companies. Anthropic’s decision to shut off access to its most advanced artificial intelligence models raised alarm bells for European leaders already worried about over-dependence on foreign partners. In recent years, the EU has sounded alarms about too much dependence on Russian energy and Chinese manufacturing. Now, the decision by U.S. artificial intelligence leader Anthropic to suspend access to its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 systems has leaders worried about overreliance on U.S. technologies.


Earlier this month, the White House ordered Anthropic — owner of artificial intelligence assistant Claude — to cut off access to its highest level systems for “any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, over security issues. Anthropic responded by cutting off access to the models for everyone. Fable 5 is the consumer version of Anthropic’s AI agent, while Mythos 5, known for its ability to detect cybersecurity vulnerabilities, is the version that was accessible only to a select network of digital infrastructure companies.

Worries that Trump could “pull the plug”
The development comes after high-level worries that President Donald Trump could “pull the plug” on large swaths of the Internet in Europe. “It is no longer reasonable to assume that we can totally rely on our American partner,” Matthias Ecke, a German member of the European Parliament said last year. It also comes amid debate within Europe over the landmark AI Act designed to regulate artificial intelligence. Even Pope Leo XIV has entered the debate, issuing his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas (Magnificent Humanity) in May, calling for artificial intelligence to be reined in to assure that it “serves humanity.” The sprawling document was unveiled last month by the pontiff alongside Christoper Olah, Anthropic’s co-founder.

“Preventing AI from dominating humanity,” Vatican says
“Artificial intelligence now demands to be disarmed, freed from logic that turns it into an instrument of domination, exclusion, and death,” Leo said. “To disarm does not mean rejecting technology but preventing it from dominating humanity.” But European tech startups and their advocates have called for the implementation of the AI Act to be delayed or for the act itself to be weakened, arguing that it makes it too hard for them to compete against rivals in the U.S. and China.

“The EU’s AI Act risks creating a fragmented, unpredictable regulatory environment that will undermine innovation, discourage investment, and ultimately leave Europe behind in the global AI race,” read a 2025 letter signed by dozens of European AI founders and investors. Rules are necessary, the letter said, “but don’t regulate us into the ground.” Now, those voices are expected to be taken more seriously. The AI Act now appears almost certain to be “watered down” and Europe’s lack of competitiveness in the sector is now set to become a central priority at the Group of Seven (G-7) leaders’ summit set to get underway in France on Monday.

But experts say the AI sector in Europe will continue to suffer from insufficient investment, high energy cost, a complex regulatory environment, and the absence of national champions. A new fictionalized scenario called Europe 2031 earning headlines in European media points to a future where “over-regulation and a lack of ambition” mean that Europe is “left powerless as AI denominates defense, cybersecurity, and geopolitics.”

Read more …

“. . . there is no saving the Left. Whatever happens to them, it will have to happen without people like you or me trying to get them to return to any place of sanity.” — Sasha Stone on Substack

• It’s All They’ve Got Now (James Howard Kunstler)

And the Lord made Sophie Cunningham of the Indiana Fever
A punishing heat-dome creeps over the eastern half of the country just in time for the gala Fourth of July week. The days are brutal, but anything and everything crawls out of the woodwork when that blazing sun goes down and the moon comes out. Everyone’s on edge, but the edge of what? I will tell you.


First, could there be a richer (or more obvious) target for bloody mischief than this year’s national holiday, the 250th birthday of a nation that millions lucky enough to live here have been trained-up to hate on? Even the sons and daughters (including pretend “daughters”) of millionaires have gone mad-dog on America, the poster-boy being Marxist-jihadi New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the Left’s new avatar-general.

Since no one is more hated than the, ahem, Celebrator-in-Chief, you might want to steer clear of conspicuous public celebrations this week. Antifa and even worse gangs are out there right now, making plans and laying traps. Maybe not so much in places like Texas, where eight Antifas were just sentenced collectively to 450 years in the slammer for shooting up the Prairieland ICE Detention Center in Alvarado. . . but here in the Empire State and other Blue-ish jurisdictions, all bets are off. Be careful ‘out there’ among the smokin’ ribs, the fireworks shows, and big music venues.

You can see how this summer, and the nauseating slide down to the midterm elections, are shaping up. The party of “Our Democracy” is desperate to an extreme now, all disfigured by a communist leprosy eating away at its public face (and a cancer of fraud metastasizing through its innards). It has become such an obvious monster, raging with its hair lit-up, that anyone with half a functioning brain is shying away, stealing off into the gloaming. The party has nothing left but chaos and, in the weeks ahead, anything that might be disrupted probably will be.

The objective is to create so much havoc and distress throughout the country — especially the big cities — that Mr. Trump will have to invoke the Insurrection Act, and by doing so, the Lefty-left hope to create conditions so adverse that an orderly Election Day cannot happen. The Insurrection Act would be the Left’s cue to declare Mr. Trump the very “king” whose coronation they have busily rehearsed all year, and then, voila, you get a new French-style American Revolution 2.0, complete with guillotine and transgender Jacobins turning the country upside-down.

You might consider the theory that the nation actually needs to suffer a genuine nightmare to wake up from. The Revolution 1.0 we celebrate this week was, after all, a nightmarish struggle rife with hardship and loss. Nine signers of the Declaration of Independence died from war-related tribulations. Five were imprisoned and tortured. Twelve had homes ransacked and burned. And then, of course, the military action itself, including travails such as the winter at Valley Forge, the disastrous New York Campaign, and the never-ending logistics crisis, no food, no clothing, no munitions.

In the present summer of travail we face, you can expect at least some major wake-up calls issued by the bloc in the country that has not gone insane — which happens to include many in Mr. Trump’s executive branch. I’m serenely confident that real evidence of 2020 election fraud will finally emerge, coincidental with indictments. Do you think that the Fulton County, GA, election records were seized last winter for no reason? Say goodbye to that old “baseless” talking point.

There are, of course, a whole lot of other seditious and treasonous Beltway villains nervously awaiting administration of the law. You know their names. It appears that the new supervising US Attorney in the Southern District of Florida, Joseph DiGenova, is reorganizing the so-called “grand conspiracy” case against this large cadre of coupsters into a folio of discrete cases — RussiaGate, Fake Impeachment #1, the Mar-a-Lago raid, etc. — to make them more manageable and move them more speedily forward. Don’t be surprised if one or more of these cases happens to drop before the midterms. (Democratic Party true-blue loyalists could be surprised, even shocked to their socks, since these indictments will refute everything that has become essential to their identities as the good and righteous people of this land.)

Read more …

“The newspaper claimed the outgoing UK prime minister is considering becoming the military bloc’s chief in 2028:”:

Last week the guy was chased out of no. 10 with tar and feathers. Now this. You tell me.

He’s an utter failure.

Who wants a bigger job.

Because of it.

• Starmer Eyeing Top NATO Position – Observer (RT)

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is stepping down following a revolt within his own party, is interested in becoming the next secretary general of NATO, The Observer reported on Sunday. Starmer teared up last week when he announced that he would resign as prime minister and Labour Party leader in response to mounting pressure. Several ministers left his cabinet, and more than 80 Labour MPs urged him to step down after the party lost nearly 1,500 local council seats in last month’s elections. Former Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, who won the Makerfield by-election on June 18, is widely seen as Starmer’s successor.


According to The Observer, Starmer is interested in becoming NATO secretary general once Mark Rutte’s term expires in 2028, unless it is extended. The newspaper added that Starmer would require “some sustained government backing” for a successful bid. It said Starmer’s supporters point to his close relationship with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, claiming that the two sometimes “pocket dial” each other by accident, as well as his ties with other European leaders.

The NATO secretary general, usually a former head of government or senior diplomat, is selected through consultations among member states, with the final appointment requiring the unanimous backing of all 32 members.

Starmer led Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election, vowing to bring stability after a string of short-lived Conservative prime ministers. However, his premiership quickly became associated with tax increases, welfare cuts, political scandals, and an increasingly controversial foreign policy agenda. He made support for Kiev a central pillar of his premiership while Britain grappled with defense funding shortages, procurement setbacks, and growing concerns over military readiness.

According to The Telegraph, Starmer was also criticized for spending too much time on international affairs and not enough on domestic issues, having traveled “more and further than any other British leader in official history.” The newspaper said he spent around two and a half months abroad during his first 17 months in office. Starmer’s relationship with US President Donald Trump also soured over his refusal to back the US-Israeli strikes on Iran. Trump said Starmer was “no Winston Churchill” and criticized his record on migration and energy policy. By contrast, Trump repeatedly praised Rutte as both a friend and an effective leader, even while criticizing NATO as a whole.

Read more …

..Will Embarrass Himself for money..

• Biden’s Own Party Heckled Him During a Speech (Margolis)

It’s been two years since Joe Biden’s catastrophic debate against President Donald Trump, which ultimately made his party realize they could no longer pretend he was fit for office and forced him out of the race. Two years later, Biden is still proving how unfit he was, this time stumbling through a combative speech in front of the very people who used to cheer him on.


Biden showed up Saturday night at the Maryland Democrat Party’s Fight Back & Win Summit at Live! Casino & Hotel in Hanover, Md., to deliver a teleprompter-fed attack against Trump. The crowd was full of party activists, the kind of room that should have been the easiest audience of his career. Instead, hecklers interrupted him mid-speech, and by the time it was over, he struggled just to make his way off the stage. If Biden wanted to use the event to prove that he still has some fight in him, what he delivered instead was a reminder of exactly why the Democrat establishment forced him out of the race two years ago.

Of course, Biden put on a show with his usual attack lines. He accused the president of wrecking America’s alliances, enriching himself in office, and tanking the country’s standing both at home and abroad, calling it “corruption on a scale never seen before.” This is from the guy who literally tried to put Trump, his political rival, in prison. Then came the line that should embarrass every Democrat in that room. “Have you noticed that Americans are saying the economy under the Biden administration is a hell of a lot better than under Trump?” Biden asked, and the crowd actually applauded.

It’s not, of course. Rampant inflation under Biden crushed American families and handed Trump the White House back in the first place. Trump has since gotten inflation under control, something Biden apparently can’t bring himself to acknowledge even now. Biden kept swinging anyway. “It’s simply stunning to me,” he said of Trump’s conduct. “He has no shame, and frankly it’s embarrassing for the country. But Trump? Trump could care less.” He also went after what he called Trump’s “vanity projects,” ticking off a list.

“It’s not just his vanity projects — tearing down the East Wing of the White House making room for his ballroom. Putting his name on the Kennedy Center. Building an arch in his own honor. Even hiring his own pool guy to fix the reflecting pool,” Biden said, before adding, “Whoa — what a loser.” And then he got lost trying to exit the stage. Two years after that debate stage exposed him to the entire country that was pretending everything was okay, Biden refuses to go away, embarrassing himself repeatedly for speaking fees because now that he’s out of power (or at least his autopen is), he has no other way to make money

Read more …

“A Culture of Instant Gratification Raised on Singular Views of Victimhood.”

• Raising Children in the 21st Century (CTH)

Katharine Birbalsingh, argues that the West’s moral crisis began with the values we taught our children. She explores how schools, culture, and social media have shaped a generation to see the world through the lens of oppressor and oppressed—and why restoring duty, responsibility, and moral character is essential to the future of Western civilization. As I watched this remarkable speech, I realized what Birbalsingh describes is what does not exist in Russia. When you talk to a person in Russia about DEI, victim mindset or the various equities of personage emphasized in the modern, cultural ‘west’; a Russian person has absolutely no reference point to engage in the conversation. Chapters: 00:00 A Moral Crisis in the West 02:04 How White Guilt Changed a Generation 03:47 The Values We Took for Granted 06:09 Teaching Children to See Oppressors and Victims 08:22 Why Young People No Longer Love Their Country 10:30 This Is a Civilizational Failure 11:35 Save Our Children, Save the West
Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 29 2026

Jun 292026
 
 June 29, 2026  Posted by at 9:06 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  49 Responses »


Ivan Aivazovsky Palace rains in Venice by moonlight 1878


• Iranian Media Calls for Atomic Bombs as Official Says ‘We Are at War’ (Salgado)
• How Crazy and Radical the Democratic Socialist Program Really Is (Spencer)
• The Democratic Socialists of America New York Communist Program (CTH)
• Hakeem Jeffries Surrenders to the Socialists (Margolis)
• Joe Biden Barely Manages To Find His Way Offstage At Dem Gala (NYPost)
• Joe Biden: The Perfect Symbol of Today’s Democrat Party (Florack)
• USMCA Status – Canada in Recession, Mexico GDP Grows Double Expectations (CTH)
• Sadiq Khan Said There Were NO Grooming Gangs In London (MN)
• Police Believe There Are 4,000 Sex-Exploitation Gang Cases in London (Salgado)
• Becerra Details an ‘Assembly Line’ for Migrant Children (Salgado)
• The Supremes Help Ensure Border Security vs Liberal Justices (Von Spakovsky)
• Supreme Court Expected To Rule On Cook, Elections, And Trans Athletes (ZH)

 


 

https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2071389101304230307?s=20 https://twitter.com/JamesBradleyCA/status/2071056181804793924?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2071324215790186722?s=20 https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2070922295976288467?s=20

 


 


Why Trump wants to make sure they don’t have nukes.

• Iranian Media Calls for Atomic Bombs as Official Says ‘We Are at War’ (Salgado)

The Tehran terrorists are not hiding their genocidal intentions toward America. The advisor to peace deal negotiator and Majles speaker Mohammad-Baquer “Death to America” Ghalibaf (or Qalibaf) declared on June 10 that negotiations buy time for the Iranian regime that is simply allowing temporary recovery for the next round of fighting. Citing Qalibaf, Mahdi Mohammadi declared that “you must never forget that you are at war … negotiations are a tool of the struggle.” He added, “We have no illusions about peace with America.” A couple weeks later, on June 28, a new report surfaced that Iranian state media is openly insisting the government should and will seek nuclear weapons.


The Hormuz Letter noted that Iranian media is justifying this nuclear advocacy by blaming President Donald Trump for threatening to wipe out the regime, threats which Trump, of course, did not end up enacting. The reality is that the murderous mullahs just want to justify the decision they always planned to make, which was to keep on with their endless jihad. And they were never really sincere about ending their nuclear program, either.

Speaking of which, the Middle East Media Research Institute translated Mohammadi’s interview on Iranian TV. Ghalibaf’s advisor bragged that the Iranian regime “control[s] the Strait of Hormuz,” where the regime continues to attack shipping up to this weekend. Mohammadi used some typical extravagant boasting, such as “the entire world is on its knees before the Islamic Republic,” and “[our] enemy is humiliated and defeated,” but he also made it clear where the regime stands on war versus peace.

“In your toolbox, you have missiles, UAVs, intelligence, and security capabilities, the Resistance” which means the many terrorist proxies like Hezbollah “your allies, and you also have the negotiations,” Mohammadi explained. “If you look at it this way, there is no problem [with negotiations]. But you must never forget that you are at war… the important thing is to get the concession at the beginning.” Continuing to elucidate why the Iranian regime pressed for major concessions even though they never wanted a deal, Mohammadi told the interviewer:

We should get something substantial right at the start, because we know — at least that’s how I see it — that the whole thing will fall apart. Fine, let it fall apart. The important thing is to get something substantial at the start. I have said this explicitly in the past. We need time and resources. We are at war. We will use the negotiations as a tool to buy time and acquire resources. We have no illusions about peace with America.

The real problem is that too many American politicians have illusions about peace with the terrorist Iranian regime.

Read more …

It truly is extreme, aka the only territory the Democrats confidently call their own.

• How Crazy and Radical the Democratic Socialist Program Really Is (Spencer)

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are on the rise. They just triumphed in New York, and are sending Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez, along with Brad Lander, a former DSA member, to Congress, where they will join DSA stars Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Ditzville) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Islamic Rage). Another DSA luminary, Zohran Mamdani, is mayor of New York City, and it is looking increasingly as if the DSA has done an Invasion of the Body Snatchers move on the Democrat Party, occupying its body and replacing its soul. The DSA is now the Democrat mainstream.


Emboldened with all this success, the DSA is loudly and proudly proclaiming what it is all about, hoping to draw more suckers into the big top. The socialists are making it clear that their program is far more comprehensive and far-reaching than most people realize; they’re hoping to do nothing less than re-create Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China in the United States.

This is no exaggeration. The superlative investigative journalist Stu Smith recently published in City Journal a long expose of the DSA’s new platform. Smith revealed that “earlier this month, the Democratic Socialists of America’s top leadership met for an in-person meeting of their National Political Committee (NPC), the DSA’s governing authority. The result of the meeting was ‘Workers Deserve More!’, a rebooted platform for the organization featuring a host of radical proposals.”

The “Workers Deserve More!” document, as Smith describes it, a blueprint that, if implemented, would without any doubt lead to the total destruction of the United States. “The document commits DSA to scrapping the U.S. Senate, ‘abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,’ defunding the Department of War, amnesty for all immigrants, and ‘replac[ing] the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.’”

Among the “carceral forces of the capitalist state” that would be abolished would be ICE and the police, so that criminals and terrorists would be streaming across the border and the American people would have no one to protect them. The idea of scrapping the Senate and making the executive and judiciary subject to Congress would be to place political power in the hands of the House, which the most populous (and far-left) areas of the country would control.

The “Workers Deserve More!” document also said that its goal was to “win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic.” You know, like the German Democratic Republic (that was the official name of Communist East Germany, one of the most repressive regimes the world has ever known) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).

In a series of X posts, Smith augmented his City Journal with more from the “Workers Deserve More!” platform, each bit more radical, and more destructive if implemented, than the last. The DSA would even move to implement a fully communist state: It would “establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure.”

Wealth taxes! Why, Gavin Newsom is already there. And that’s just another indication of how this socialist madness, that has failed in so many countries, is become mainstream in ours, where people should know better, but apparently (after years of miseducation) do not.

The DSA’s forthrightness is something of a departure from recent practice. Old Joe Biden, after all, ridiculed the idea that he was a socialist during the 2020 campaign, only to allow those who were running his regime to take a decisively socialist and authoritarian course. Barack Obama likewise campaigned as a calm, moderate, centrist, only to become the most divisive, far-left president the nation had ever had up to the time he took office.

Yet as the DSA grows in power and influence in the Democrat Party and the nation in general, it seems to be confident that Americans will love its plan. No one should be fooled, however. If we are unfortunate enough to inaugurate a DSA president on Jan. 20, 2029, all the aspects of the DSA program that are currently being covered up will return in force, and be inflicted upon the American people. There is no doubt about that at all.

Read more …

Can you imagine?

• The Democratic Socialists of America New York Communist Program (CTH)

Barbara Boyd discusses three Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani winning upset victories in New York congressional primaries, framing the results as part of a long-term cultural project rather than a purely economic platform. She argues the DSA’s internal education centers on communist theorist Antonio Gramsci and his strategy of revolution through cultural “hegemony,” citing a deleted Instagram post from a group tied to one winner that called for the “total eradication of Western Civilization.”


Boyd highlights a newly published DSA platform proposing major constitutional changes, then links Gramsci to the Council on Foreign Relations’ “post-Trump world” series, noting CFR fellow Charles Kupchan opens with a Gramsci quote and attacks reindustrialization and tariffs. She claims British imperial networks historically sponsored Marx and later Gramsci, using communism and counterculture against rivals, and urges promoting Trump’s “American System” economics and an optimistic national culture ahead of the midterms.

Read more …

“.. no one in the party is safe from this hostile takeover. Not even leadership. And what did Jeffries do? He congratulated them.”

• Hakeem Jeffries Surrenders to the Socialists (Margolis)

The Democrat Party has a socialism problem, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) just made it worse. Last week’s New York City congressional primaries delivered a troubling result for anyone who thought the Democrat Party had hit peak radicalism: it hasn’t. Far-left candidates Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez, backed by Democratic socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and linked to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), knocked out two Democrat incumbents. Far-left Democrat Brad Lander also won his primary.


At the watch party for the socialist winners, the crowd made its intentions clear. When Jeffries appeared on a TV screen, supporters broke into chants of “You’re next!” It’s clear the socialists are gunning for his seat, which means no one in the party is safe from this hostile takeover. Not even leadership. And what did Jeffries do? He congratulated them. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw this post on X Saturday.

Seriously? The crowd at that watch party had just threatened to oust him on live television. Now he’s bending the knee to them, posting a glowing congratulation that frames “far-right extremism” as the threat to confront while saying nothing about the DSA affiliations, the far-left policy positions, or the fact that the winners’ supporters just signaled they’re coming for his job. He even treated these primary wins as equivalent to general election victories, which, in New York City, they essentially are.

I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised. When CNBC host Joe Kernen asked Jeffries on camera about the “You’re next!” chant and about the rise of socialist candidates in his party, he did what Democrats always do: he pivoted immediately to President Donald Trump.

No pushback. No acknowledgment of the problem. Just the standard deflection. This is a tell. Either Jeffries genuinely doesn’t see the socialist takeover of his party as a threat worth confronting, or he’s too afraid to say so. I’m not even sure which is worse. I’ve written before that this tension between the socialist wing and the rest of the party has serious implications for the midterms and 2028. Socialism may sell in deep blue cities, but it doesn’t play in the suburban districts Democrats need to win a majority. Every DSA-backed candidate who locks up a safe seat in New York City drags the national party brand further left and hands Republicans a hammer to use in competitive races everywhere else. And establishment Democrats are either unwilling to stop it or too afraid to.

Read more …

Elder abuse.

• Joe Biden Barely Manages To Find His Way Offstage At Dem Gala (NYPost)

Former President Joe Biden was back onstage at a Democratic Party gala to excoriate President Trump Saturday – but needed a little help figuring out just how to exit. Biden, who got pushed out of his reelection bid by fellow Democrats in 2024 following his debate disaster against Trump, defended his record and blasted his successor during his speech to the Maryland Democratic Party’s Fight Back & Win summit near Baltimore. He ripped Trump for the “deliberate distraction – destruction of NATO” and hammered Trump’s White House ballroom as a “vanity project.”


At his speech’s conclusion Biden delivered a familiar refrain about the nation’s ability to overcome challenges – then sought an assist to find out which way to leave the stage. He turned to the side seeking guidance, then pointed in two different directions to ascertain the best route. Once he had it sorted out, he walked away from the stage with his back to the audience. His appearance at event, held at the Live! Casino & Hotel in Hanover, Maryland, came just days after he appeared at the grand opening of the Barack Obama presidential library in Chicago.

At that event, a bewildered looking Biden was left awkwardly onstage at its conclusion. “Where’s my granddaughter?” he shouted while walking up to the podium as it ended. At other times, he was guided by former first lady Jill Biden. Biden, 83, relied on a teleprompter during his Saturday night remarks, squinting at times as he read his verbal blasts at his rival, who he defeated in 2020, only to relinquish the White House in 2024. He coughed loudly several times early on. “Have you noticed that Americans are saying the economy under the Biden administration is a hell of a lot better than under Trump?” he told party faithful in the deep blue state.


“It’s not just his vanity projects – tearing down the East Wing of the White House making room for his ballroom. Putting his name on the Kennedy Center. Building an arch in his own honor. Even hiring his own pool guy to fix the reflecting pool. Woah – what a loser,” Biden said to applause. He called it “simply stunning to me” that Trump made “billions of dollars” as he returned to the White House, saying “he has no shame.” Biden’s successive awkward exits come after a long history during his presidency of mangling stage directions, as he did famously at a G7 photo-op in Italy in 2024.

He made no reference to the ideological fight going on in his party after democratic socialists prevailed in three New York primaries. The former first lady has been upping her media profile as she promotes her new book, where she revealed she at first thought Biden might be “having a stroke” during his 2024 presidential debate disaster.Hunter Biden, meanwhile, has launched an active social media profile where he has been promoting his art and taking on his dad’s critics, at one point challenging Donald Trump, Jr. to a cage match while blasting the UFC fight staged on the South Lawn of the White House.

Read more …

“They’re fresh out of ideas, and fresh out of people to represent those ideas.”

There.s a contradiction somewhere in there.

• Joe Biden: The Perfect Symbol of Today’s Democrat Party (Florack)

Honestly, Joe Biden is an 83-year-old man who probably should be home with his grandchildren, not being trotted out in front of a partisan crowd in Maryland to read attacks off a teleprompter and then wait for someone to point him toward the exit. On a purely human level, there’s something genuinely sad about that picture. No, what this is about is the Democrat Party machine — the political apparatus, the party operatives, the media figures, the staffers, consultants, and loyalists who spent the better part of four years looking America dead in the eye and insisting that Joe Biden was sharp, capable, fully in command, and absolutely fit to serve another term as President of the United States.


And today, they insist on trotting him onto a stage to show the world just how wrong they were. These are the people who called you a liar — or worse, a conspiracy theorist — for suggesting that Biden wasn’t sure what planet he was on. The people who buried the story, spiked the footage, and escorted skeptical reporters right out of the conversation.

These are the same people who are now, with a straight face, putting this man back on a stage. Think about what that actually required. I mean, this is really the saddest part…. Think about the number of people involved in this process. Someone booked him. Someone wrote the speech. Someone set up the teleprompter. Someone stood offstage and waited to guide him out when it was over. And at every step of that process, not one person in that operation apparently stopped to ask whether any of this was a good idea — for the party, for the country, or for the man himself. The show must go on. The attacks on Trump must be delivered. The base must be fed.

The Democrat Party has a long and well-practiced tradition of putting the pursuit of power ahead of everything else, including basic honesty about the condition of the people they’re asking you to trust with the nuclear codes. We watched it happen in real time through 2023 and 2024—the insistence, the gaslighting, the furious pushback against anyone who raised questions. And then the debate happened, and the curtain came down, and suddenly everyone who’d been telling you Biden was fine remembered they needed to wash their hair.

But now he’s back. Squinting at the teleprompter. Coughing. Waiting for someone to show him the way out. What’s the reasoning behind this? It’s simple enough; they’ve got nothing else to offer. They’re fresh out of ideas, and fresh out of people to represent those ideas.

Think about that for a moment. The Democrat Party—the party that controls most of the major media institutions, most of the universities, most of the cultural apparatus of the country—their big move on a Saturday night in Maryland is to dust off an 83-year-old man who can’t find the exit and point him at a teleprompter. That’s the best they’ve got. That’s the headliner. The best symbol for the self-proclaimed party of young ideas is an 83-year-old with, sadly, the mental capacity of a wheel chock.

Are you kidding me? Where’s the next generation? Where’s the compelling vision they keep claiming they have? Where’s the candidate who walks into a room and makes people believe something? The answer is both simple and revealing. They don’t have one.

I’m to the point now of concluding that this 83-year-old mushroom brain is the ideal symbol for the party. They’ve spent so many years building a party around identity checklists, approved narratives, and the politics of grievance that they’ve completely lost the ability to produce a leader who can actually lead. What they can produce is someone who will, in an almost reliable fashion, say the right things in the right order to the right interest groups—and when that person can no longer reliably do even that, apparently the answer is to keep sending him out anyway, teleprompter and spotter included, because the alternative is admitting they have nothing at all to offer.

Read more …

Carney’s ideology is very expensive for his people. Do they know?

• USMCA Status – Canada in Recession, Mexico GDP Grows Double Expectations (CTH)

You might remember recent reports outlining how the economy of Canada has slipped into a recession, posting two consecutive quarters with a negative GDP outcome. There are multiple reasons for this shrinkage, but the dominant factor is, well, quite frankly, Canadian politics and economic policy.


Meanwhile, in Mexico the opposite is happening. Mexico’s economic activity grew 1.2% in April from the prior month, the national statistics agency said, compared with a revised increase of 0.6% in March and beating a forecast of a 0.9% increase in a Reuters poll of analysts. {source} It is not coincidental to see the Mexican economy performing well, while the Canadian economy is contracting. Despite their identical proximity to The United States, each nation is currently executing a fundamentally different set of economic policies.

The Canadian government has been exceptionally combative with the U.S.A, leading to friction, tariffs and economic back-and-forth measures between the two nations.The Mexican government has expressly understood the nature of their dependency, admitted it, taken no action to diminish it, and purposefully set out to align itself with the interests of America. Canada is combative. Mexico is collaborating.

It seems unlikely that the three nations can agree on major economic policies, as a trilateral partnership would need alignment in core areas like energy policy. Canada’s energy policy is fundamentally separate from those of the U.S. and Mexico, and this is an issue that can’t be resolved through a trade agreement alone. A large part of Mexico’s economy relies on remittances from Mexican workers in the U.S. sending money back to their families. As long as the U.S. job market stays strong—and it’s only getting stronger in the industries where many Mexicans work—Mexico will continue to benefit from America’s economic growth.

One datapoint that points to the USA-Canada disconnect comes in the auto sector. The Center for Automotive Research (CAR) reports that Canadian vehicle production dropped 15 percent year-over-year through April. It’s understood that factories in Canada built approximately 64,000 fewer vehicles through April than the year prior, while US production rose by roughly 44,000 units, or 1.2 percent. Auto manufacturing companies in Canada operate there as part of the business plan to sell vehicles into the USA. As Canada increases friction with the USA, which is setting up a dynamic of U.S. withdrawal from the USMCA, those auto manufacturers will increasingly shift production from Canada to the U.S. market.

It appears that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s response to this predictable auto-sector outcome, is to flip those production facilities into venues for Chinese EV production (BYD and Geely). However, Democrats and Republicans are united in alignment with President Trump on this issue and Chinese EVs will not be permitted entry into the USA. This is a very big point of friction. Right now, no company in their right mind would invest in Canada against the backdrop of a potential USMCA withdrawal by President Trump. This is creating a scenario where our old nemesis, the U.S Chamber of Commerce, is spending tens-of-millions in Washington DC to purchase the votes and support of congress to retain the trilateral deal.

Right now, every multinational corporation in the world is looking closely at the White House as the July 1st deadline approaches. Almost none of them can fathom what will happen if the U.S. announces the intention to fully exit the USMCA and triggers a six-month withdrawal process. Despite what many have falsely claimed, it was specifically written into the original trade terms that if any of the three countries announce an exit to the trilateral agreement, they can fully exit six months later. If the USA makes this announcement -whenever they make this announcement- a literal economic doomsday countdown begins for Canada.

Mexico would not really be too disturbed by the announcement as both USTR Jamieson Greer and his Mexican counterpart have been negotiating on a bilateral basis for over a full year. However, for Canada the ramifications are so astronomical, it is almost impossible to fathom what might happen when 80% of their total exports face an unpredictable future. The leverage President Trump carries are so formidable, the only thing that compares in scale is the ‘elbow’s up‘ ego of Prime Minister Carney. ‘Splodey heads is an understatement. Canadians are so unprepared it’s jaw dropping. Make that exit announcement and as soon as reality sits-in, the Canadian dollar could collapse.

Read more …

“.. the force’s existing load of around 2,000 sexual offences a month. ‘

• Sadiq Khan Said There Were NO Grooming Gangs In London (MN)

The London mayor who once insisted there was “no indication” of grooming gangs now faces explosive new scrutiny after a police review uncovered thousands of previously sidelined child sexual exploitation files. The Metropolitan Police has identified more than 4,000 potential child sexual exploitation cases across London that may require reopening. These stem from roughly 12,000 reports dating back to 2010, with about one in three previously closed after police or prosecutors took no further action.


The cases have now been referred to the National Crime Agency under Operation Beaconport for urgent assessment.

This development directly contradicts Sadiq Khan’s past public statements. In January 2025, appearing before the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee, Khan repeatedly dodged questions from Conservative member Susan Hall about the scale of grooming gangs in the capital. He claimed his understanding from regular police briefings was that there were “no reported cases and also no indication of the grooming gangs” she was concerned about. When pressed on how many such gangs operated in London, he asked her to clarify what she meant by the term.

https://twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/2071186451383910409?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2071186451383910409%7Ctwgr%5Eea2bc72b7653237ca01eada41547b579e87f1f93%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmodernity.news%2F2026%2F06%2F28%2Fsadiq-khan-said-there-were-no-grooming-gangs-in-london-police-investigating-4000-cases%2F

Critics now describe the position as gaslighting. Hall called the scale “utterly disgraceful,” noting it represents 4,000 young girls raped and sexually abused while authorities looked the other way or actively resisted scrutiny. Khan’s team now claims he has always supported leaving “no stone unturned.” The gap between that line and his earlier blanket denials has not gone unnoticed. This London revelation fits a wider, years-long scandal of institutional failure and political cowardice. Earlier this year we detailed how even the BBC exposed the scale of grooming activity in the capital under Khan’s watch.

Separate investigations laid bare mini-mart operations where vulnerable children were plied with alcohol and cigarettes in exchange for sexual abuse. Illegal shops were caught handing out free vapes to kids in return for sexual favours. And the weary response from parts of the establishment often boiled down to telling victims and the public to simply “get over it.”

Read more …

Sadiq Khan says zero, the police say 4,000. No possible error or overlap. Therefore, time for Khan to go. Or the police. One of the two.

“Great Britain has become, or at least is well on the way to becoming, a sharia state. “

• Police Believe There Are 4,000 Sex-Exploitation Gang Cases in London (Salgado)

London’s Metropolitan Police have found evidence suggesting there are thousands of child sex exploitation gangs or offenders in London.London is reportedly majority Muslim now (which tallies with my experience there), but even if that is in reality an exaggeration, it’s obvious the UK capital has a serious problem with Islamic rape gangs. Just in London, there are up to 4,000 grooming gang cases that authorities have tried to cover up.


Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe, who released the bombshell report on grooming gangs that identified 250,000 British girls and women as victims, indicated that between 87% and 95% of such sexual criminals are Muslim men. In other words, the mass child exploitation and rape gang crisis in England is almost entirely a result of mass migration from Muslim-majority nations. That is not surprising given that Islamic sacred texts endorse pedophilia, rape, and sexual slavery. But the current mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is also Muslim. Now, some Muslims do not follow the encouragement to sexual crime in their sacred texts, but will Khan address the rape-gang crisis any more now than he did before? Somehow I expect not.

In fact, according to GB News, Khan previously and emphatically asserted there was “no evidence” that grooming gangs were operating in London. Scotland Yard’s new findings indicate how wildly false that was. Sir Sadiq Khan is facing fresh scrutiny over his previous claims about grooming gangs in London after the Met Police identified more than 4,000 potential child sexual exploitation cases that could now be reopened… Roughly one in three cases [of 12,000] are now flagged for potential reinvestigation after police or the Crown Prosecution Service previously decided to take no further action.

And yet before the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee in 2025, Khan asserted, “My understanding from speaking to the police, and she will appreciate, I have done on a regular basis, is and I choose my words carefully for the reasons she will understand there are no reported cases and also no indication of the grooming gangs that she is concerned about in London.” It is likely his critics who accused him of a cover-up were correct. Notably, on Saturday, a Somali-born man drove a car into a crowd in London. The overwhelming majority of victim-based crimes in the UK do not result in a charge. On the other hand, thousands of British citizens have ended up in handcuffs for social media posts.

Great Britain has become, or at least is well on the way to becoming, a sharia state. Many of the British people are opposed to it and awake to the danger, but unfortunately, just as in many states here in the U.S., the communists in charge of the government are willing to take many tyrannical measures to ensure they never lose power. And it is even more difficult to change leadership in a country with a parliamentary system as Britain has. The UK is held captive thanks to suicidal woke idiots and fundamentalist Muslims.

Read more …

Women or children, our societies make a mess of protecting both. There is a price to pay for that.

• Becerra Details an ‘Assembly Line’ for Migrant Children (Salgado)

Republican California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is calling attention to allegedly leaked audio of his Democrat opponent and former Biden HHS secretary urging staff to traffic illegal alien kids the “way you do an assembly line.”


The clip features two unidentified women discussing the comments of Xavier Becerra, who as head of the Department of Health and Human Services under the previous administration oversaw a gargantuan network of unaccompanied migrant minors passed off to barely vetted sponsors. We now know that many of these sponsors were unrelated to the children and exploited them, sometimes for sexual purposes. The allegedly leaked audio sheds some light on Becerra’s attitude, as he saw these vulnerable children as a sort of product, not as individual humans. Hilton indicated he has more information about to become public.

Some of the HHS employees were so bothered by the exploitation and trafficking of the young kids that they filed a complaint letter against Becerra, per the clip.

The leaked audio is reportedly from an internal meeting where Becerra seemed to be railing against his staff for — as he perceived it — moving too slow in passing unaccompanied alien minors (UACs) along. If the audio is of Becerra and staff, it contains the acknowledgment that the kids could be in a trafficking situation, but that isn’t supposed to be important.

“If Henry Ford had seen this in his plant, he would have never become famous and rich,” the alleged recording of Becerra states. “This is not the way you do an assembly line …We need to get discharges up. Every time we have to go to the Hill [Congress] and explain why we’re spending so much money when most people are struggling to spend a little bit of money for the kids on a daily basis, we try to explain how we’re spending more than $1000 a day for kids who may not even have the legal right to be here? Not me.”

While we cannot absolutely confirm the authenticity of this shocking audio, we can find evidence of Becerra callously refusing to address evidence that his agency was placing children with pimps and strip clubs. That interchange with a congressman appears to have come from Becerra’s 2024 testimony to the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity regarding UACs.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-Wis.) cited evidence of trafficking in HHS’s UAC pipeline. “One of the little girls was forced into prostitution by someone who claimed to be her aunt, because there [were] no checks being done… It revealed that children were pimped out by their aunt, which it turns out the aunt wasn’t even related to the child’s so-called aunt. Are you familiar with that story that was in there?” Tiffany asked.

Becerra stuttered in response, “There are a number of, uh, incidents that are reported in that, uh, that Florida report. Some of them I can probably recall better than others. Some of them I would challenge and dispute, but, uh, that one I don’t remember.” So Tiffany pressed, “And do you remember the teenage girl that was in a house with unknown men with no private bedroom for her?” And “Are you familiar with the sponsors that utilize a strip club in Jacksonville as an address for where this child, where a child should be settled?”

Becerra didn’t have a good defense. Because for him, the children were not vulnerable kids needing protection; they were merely part of his assembly line to further the mass migration policies of the Biden administration.

Read more …

“.. she chastised the majority for its “illogical interpretation” of the law and its “fixation” on the word “in.”

• The Supremes Help Ensure Border Security vs Liberal Justices (Von Spakovsky)

You really have to hand it to Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. When it comes to trying to stop lawful immigration enforcement, they are willing to twist the law and themselves like pretzels to please the open-borders crowd.


There really is no other way to read their dissents in the three important immigration cases decided by the Court in the last two weeks. Their dissents are also very revealing because they spend a great deal of time criticizing the policies in each case, apparently forgetting that they are not policymakers but judges tasked with one job: determining whether the policy implemented by the executive branch (whether they like it or not) is within the authority granted by the Constitution or federal law.

They abandoned that role in each of these cases. Mullin v. Al Otro Lando was an easy case to decide. During the Obama administration, the number of aliens mobbing ports of entry overwhelmed immigration agents. The administration put in a metering system that only allowed a certain number of aliens to be processed and to claim asylum. Other aliens were prevented from crossing the border and the Trump administration continued that system. The aliens remaining in Mexico sued claiming they were unlawfully prevented from entering the U.S. and still had a right to assert asylum. Unfortunately, some lower federal courts issued injunctions agreeing with them.

But as the six-member majority of the Supreme Court said on June 25, the statute providing aliens with the ability to claim asylum only applies to aliens “arriving in the United States.” It should be obvious to anyone with any common sense – which seems to exclude the three dissenters – that you don’t arrive “in” a location until you actually arrive in the location. The Court held that under the plain text of the statute and the ordinary, everyday meaning of arriving “in,” aliens still in Mexico can’t claim a right to enter the country and claim asylum because they never arrived “in” the U.S.

But in a dissent by Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, she chastised the majority for its “illogical interpretation” of the law and its “fixation” on the word “in.” She claimed the word “in” doesn’t really mean “in” and that anyone arriving on “our doorstep” is the same as being “in” the country. In addition to this illogical interpretation, she and her comrades spent much of their time discussing the supposedly terrible consequences of the majority’s decision, claiming it will cause “more people [to] die,” a totally outrageous claim that has no basis in fact.

But most importantly, the rightness or wrongness of the policy has absolutely nothing to do with the question that was before the Court. The issue was whether implementing this policy is within the authority of the administration under the language of the statute. It clearly is, something the three liberals refused to acknowledge.

Mullin v. Doe was a similarly easy case to decide, at least for the majority and anyone who can read plain English. In 1990, Congress gave the president, acting through the secretary of Homeland Security, the authority to provide temporary lawful status to aliens whose countries have been hit with natural disasters and other problems. Syrians were granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2012 and Haitians in 2010. The Trump administration ended TPS for both groups in 2025, but federal courts once again issued injunctions telling the president he couldn’t do that.

But the TPS status has specific language barring all judicial review of any determination to grant or end TPS. The Court’s six-member majority enforced this provision, concluding that it wipes out all claims of statutory violations (which the Syrians made) although it does not bar constitutional claims (which the Haitians made). The Court dissolved the injunctions against the termination of TPS for both the Syrians and the Haitians. .

Read more …

A full agenda before summer recess.

• Supreme Court Expected To Rule On Cook, Elections, And Trans Athletes (ZH)

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming days whether President Donald Trump can remove Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook from her post – an extraordinary step that would mark the first presidential firing of a Fed official since the central bank’s founding in 1913 and directly test the institution’s independence from political interference.


The justices, who hold a 6-3 conservative majority, signaled skepticism during January arguments toward Trump’s authority to oust Cook. The Federal Reserve Act requires that governors be removed only “for cause,” a term Congress left undefined and without procedural details. Trump cited unsubstantiated allegations of mortgage fraud – which Cook has denied and called a pretext for her removal over monetary policy disagreements. Cook has remained in her role while the case proceeds. No president has attempted such a firing in the Fed’s more than century-long history.

This dispute is one of three pending cases examining the outer limits of presidential power under Trump. The others involve his removal of a Federal Trade Commission member and an executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court has already delivered Trump victories in two immigration cases this week and has frequently sided with the administration in emergency rulings, though it rejected his sweeping tariffs in February.

Firing Federal Officials
The justices appeared ready during December arguments to uphold Trump’s firing of Democratic FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter over policy differences. Lower courts had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Court to overturn the 1935 precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which has protected heads of independent agencies from at-will removal. While the Court has narrowed that precedent in recent decades, it has stopped short of overruling it. Conservative justices have expressed sympathy for the view that statutory tenure protections encroach on the president’s constitutional powers. The Court previously allowed Trump to remove Slaughter while the case continues.

Election-Related Cases
Two election disputes remain as Republicans seek to retain congressional control in the November midterms. During March arguments, conservative justices expressed skepticism toward a Mississippi law – challenged by Republicans and supported by the Trump administration – that permits mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted if received up to five business days later. A lower court invalidated the provision. A ruling striking down the law could encourage stricter voting rules nationwide.

Trump issued an executive order in March restricting mail-in ballots across the country, but a federal judge in Boston blocked its implementation on Thursday. In December, the Court heard a Republican-led challenge – involving Vice President JD Vance – to federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates. Some conservative justices appeared open to the First Amendment arguments against the restrictions, while the liberal justices seemed inclined to preserve them. A lower court had upheld the limits.

Transgender Athletes
In January arguments, the conservative majority signaled it is prepared to uphold laws in Idaho and West Virginia barring transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools and universities. The states argue the measures protect fair competition for women and girls; critics see them as part of broader efforts to restrict transgender rights.

Geofence Warrants
The Court also heard April arguments in a Virginia case examining whether law enforcement’s use of “geofence” warrants – which sweep up cellphone location data from areas near crime scenes to identify potential suspects – violates the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court’s term, which began in October, typically ends in late June or early July. With seven cases still unresolved and the next round of decisions expected Monday, the coming days will bring clarity on these high-stakes disputes.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/2071050540096573634?s=20 https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2071362283356463168?s=20 https://twitter.com/DiogenisSinopis/status/2070949496138199462?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 28 2026

Jun 282026
 
 June 28, 2026  Posted by at 9:56 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  25 Responses »


Rembrandt van Rijn Belshazzar’s feast 1635-38


• The Shooting in the Strait Ain’t over, But… (Larry Johnson)
• Iran Launches Drone Attack Targeting Bahrain (JTN)
• Why is The Ukraine War Hardest to End? (CTH)
• Zelensky Telegraphs 40-Day Pressure Offensive On Russia (ZH)
• Ukraine Closes Week Of Drone Attacks On Russia By Hitting Weapons Plant (ZH)
• Democratic Establishment Accuses Socialists of Exploiting Ballot Access (JTN)
• One Democrat — and Only One — Has Had Enough of the Commies (Robert Spencer)
• The Obama Halo Is Starting to Flicker. Finally! (David Manney)
• When Extremists Run the Government (J.B. Shurk)
• Culture of Grievance- When Victimhood Becomes Social Currency (Brooks)
• Bookmark and Reference Point – June 2026 (CTH)
• Volkswagen To Slash 100,000 Jobs (RT)

 


 

https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/2070611688009703759?s=20

 


 


Can Trump still avoid the war?

• The Shooting in the Strait Ain’t over, But… (Larry Johnson)

A little over a week since the US and Iran signed the MoU, some ships that had been trapped in the Persian rushed to travel through the corridor, with many trying to use an alternative route on the southern side of the Strait along the Omani coast. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) had coordinated this alternative routing with Oman – hugging the UAE and Musandam Peninsula coastline, avoiding the central passage that Iran had mined. This route was significant because it bypassed Iran’s designated corridor entirely, which ran closer to Iranian territorial waters.


However, Iran and Oman agreed on a new framework (joint working group) for the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, June 24, 2026. The two countries agreed to establish a joint working group between their foreign ministries to discuss: Future navigation rules and administration of the strait. Services provided (e.g., safety, pilotage). Associated costs (in accordance with international standards). Both emphasized their sovereignty over their territorial waters in the strait.

The naval arm of the Revolutionary Guard issued a warning Thursday against using the new route. In a statement carried by Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, naval officials said the route was established without notice or coordination with Iran, calling it “unacceptable and completely dangerous.” According to the IRGC: “The only authorized route for passing through the Strait of Hormuz is the one declared by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Vessel traffic outside these routes is extremely dangerous and prohibited. Violators will be dealt with.” The day before, the Guard had threatened one tanker over the radio, with a soldier warning “You are in range of my missiles and maybe (I) fire on you,” according to the private security firm Ambrey.

On Thursday the Ever Lovely, a Singapore-flagged ship operating in the fleet of Taiwan-based Evergreen Marine, attempted to transit the strait using a narrow channel near the coast of Oman in accordance with a route organized by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) security monitor. The Ever Lovely was struck by a drone belonging to Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran allegedly shot at least four drones at ships traveling through the Strait on Thursday. One of those hit the upper deck of the Ever Lovely. On Friday, the US attacked Iran in ‘response’ to strikes on the commercial vessel in Strait of Hormuz a day earlier:

Iran’s IRIB reported that an explosion was heard at 11:15 pm at the Taheroui pier in Sirik. A military source said the blasts were caused by a projectile hitting the pier area, adding that around five hours earlier, several warning shots had been fired from Sirik toward violating vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Reports also indicated that two warning missiles were fired earlier from around Karpan toward the strait. US Central Command said its forces carried out strikes against Iran on 26 June in response to Iran’s attack the previous day on the Singapore-flagged cargo ship M/V Ever Lovely as it exited the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast. CENTCOM said US aircraft targeted Iranian missile and drone storage sites and coastal radar positions after the vessel was hit by a one-way attack drone.

Although CENTCOM presented this as a powerful strike on Iran, and the US media trumpeted it as an act of major retaliation, the US response inflicted little damage and could reasonably be interpreted as a symbolic gesture rather than a punishing attack. The IRGC Public Relations department issued the following statement: Following the Israeli regime’s violation of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon, the treaty-breaking US regime also violated its commitments once again. Under various pretexts, including the transit of a vessel accused of navigating through an unauthorized route in the Strait of Hormuz, the US launched an airstrike against the coasts of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In response to this aggression, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy struck positions where the US terrorist military is stationed in the region. Under Article 5 of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, responsibility for regulating navigation through the Strait of Hormuz rests with the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, the United States sought to violate this commitment by encouraging various parties to defy it. It received the necessary response, and the same will apply in the future. If the aggression is repeated, Iran’s response will be broader than this.

Instead of marking a return to war, this exchange of fire can best be categorize as military political theater. I believe that Iran, thanks to intel from the Russians or the Chinese, has learned that the US has issued orders that will initiate the return to CONUS of the aircraft, vehicles and troops that had been deployed to the region in preparation for the February 28 attack. Because of the limited damage inflicted by the US attack, I believe that Iran chose to respond in a limited fashion rather than escalate and run the risk of the US cancelling the redeployment order.

For now, Iran remains in control of the Strait of Hormuz and ships wanting to transit the Strait are adhering to Iran’s new policy.

Read more …

Iran makes it a teritorial war in/on its own territory.

• Iran Launches Drone Attack Targeting Bahrain (JTN)

Iranian drones attacked Bahrain after overnight airstrikes by the United States. The U.S. strikes followed an Iranian attack on a cargo ship on Thursday. A tanker was hit by a projectile in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, according to Britain’s maritime security agency. No one was injured and Iran hasn’t officially claimed responsibility for the attack. These attacks occurred despite Iran and the U.S. reaching an interim deal to end the war.
Read more …

Because the west can fight Russia in Ukraine. They don’t want it to stop.

• Why is The Ukraine War Hardest to End? (CTH)

Mike Steger from Promethean Action PAC argues the reason the Ukraine war is hardest to end is simply because Ukraine represents the proxy state of all the globalist stakeholders who need another large conflict in order to eliminate the problem of a moral-based Christian perspective within the ‘West.’ Essentially, without Russia as the enemy, the factional war they need to retain power is much harder to achieve. Promethean Action PAC YouTube: “Mike Steger explores the concept of “color revolutions” and argues that the same strategies used to influence governments abroad are now shaping politics across the West.


From Ukraine and the Arab Spring to Brazil, Europe, and the United States, Mike examines how non-governmental organizations, media networks, political activism, and government institutions have evolved into powerful geopolitical tools.The discussion also explores President Trump’s efforts to reshape U.S. foreign policy, dismantle longstanding government programs, push election reforms, and challenge what Mike describes as the political establishment ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.”

Read more …

Putin can’t let this go on forever.

• Zelensky Telegraphs 40-Day Pressure Offensive On Russia (ZH)

The Ukraine war is quite obviously escalating, especially regarding Ukrainian leaders seeking to “bring the war” to Russian soil, amid nightly drone attacks which have come in the hundreds and even thousands of late. President Volodymyr Zelensky is seeking to seize on the momentum of repeat drone hits on Russian refinery and energy infrastructure – a reality Russia has suffered over many months, leading to a current fuel crisis spanning dozens of cities and regions, and especially Crimea, which has temporarily halted fuel sales to common citizens altogether this week.


Ukrainian media is touting a new Zelensky plan to ramp up the pressure on Russia over the next 40 days, aimed at “pressuring Russia to end its war”. He has ordered Ukraine’s State Security Service (SBU) to launch a new 40-day operation, which also includes “plan for long-range sanctions, medium-range sanctions, and the results achieved by the SBU,” Zelensky said on X. He’s further calling it an “influence operation.” “For several months in a row, the SBU has demonstrated the highest performance in defending Ukraine’s positions on the front lines through the use of various types of drones,” Zelensky said on Thursday evening. According to more of the statement:

I approved a 40-day influence operation for the Service against the aggressor state aimed at compelling it to end the war. Importantly, for several months in a row, the SSU has demonstrated the highest performance in defending Ukraine’s positions on the front lines through the use of various types of drones. The Center of Special Operations “Alpha” leads in terms of the occupier’s personnel and equipment neutralized. Earlier, in mid-June, Ukrainian Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov proclaimed “Hell is beginning,” for Russia and its military. “Logistics are being cut off. Crimea is being isolated,” he said at the time.

Ukraine’s asymmetric warfare against Russia’s much-larger and better armed military machine is in a significantly better position than the status of a year or so ago. Russian forces still have the upper-hand on the front line in the east, but the pain clearly being inflicted on Russia’s economy can’t be ignored at this point.This sets up a potential slide into tit-for-tat escalation which could unleash a WW3 scenario. In the meantime this is an interesting-timed warning from Latvia and Poland:

Western intelligence agencies are increasingly concerned that Russia may be preparing a limited hybrid operation targeting NATO’s eastern flank, potentially involving the Baltic states or Poland. Such a move, officials believe, could be an attempt to test the alliance’s unity as the war in Ukraine enters a new phase.According to reporting by The Guardian, intelligence officials from two NATO countries have warned that Moscow is considering a “provocation” rather than a full-scale military attack.

At the moment inside Russia, many regions of Russia seem powerless to stop Ukraine’s inbound drone waves, given also that conventional air defenses are set up to defend primarily against larger, faster-moving projectiles like missiles or jets. President Trump has lately suggested that Ukraine is doing well in the war, or at least much better than it once was. Kiev now feels the pressure to keep this narrative going, also so it can attract more and more weapons and intelligence help. But at some point Russia will feel it necessary to strongly reassert its red lines. This could come in the form of another massive escalation, and against ‘decision-making centers’.

Read more …

Escalation.

• Ukraine Closes Week Of Drone Attacks On Russia By Hitting Weapons Plant (ZH)

Ukraine announced Saturday that it used its Flamingo cruise missiles overnight to strike Russia’s Titan-Barrikady weapons plant, which reportedly manufactures parts for its powerful Oreshnik missile. The military plant is in Volgograd, formerly Stalingrad, which is a major industrial city in southwest Russia. Writing on X, President Zelensky described it as a “major industrial complex” where Russia “produces artillery systems and specialized military equipment, including components for missile launch systems.” “Every Russian defense facility involved in the war against Ukraine is a legitimate target for our long-range strikes,” he wrote.


The Associated Press reports, “Volgograd Gov. Andrei Bocharov confirmed an attack on a business in the region’s Krasnooktyabrsky district, saying 10 people had been wounded and taken to a hospital. He said production facilities at the site were damaged but did not identify the company.” Additionally, “Ukraine’s state security service said Saturday morning that Ukrainian forces also struck an oil pumping facility in Russia’s Vladimir region that supplies fuel to Moscow, for the second time this month.” But on the other side of the border, Ukrainian media reports that Russia was also busy with now nightly airstrikes:

Russian forces targeted production facilities belonging to the Naftogaz Group, Ukraine’s largest national oil and gas company, in the Poltava and Kharkiv regions. The barrage of attacks included 129 drones, of which 113 were destroyed or jammed by Ukrainian forces, Ukrainian media reported. The Russian overnight attacks on Ukraine killed two people and injuring more than 20, according to state officials. At a moment much of the globe’s attention remains fixated on Iran and the fate of energy shipping through the largely blocked Strait of Hormuz, the Ukraine war is rapidly escalating.

Ukrainian leadership has issued some astounding stats on the escalation on its side of the border: Russia attacked Ukraine with 1,400 drones and 1,500 guided bombs President Volodymyr Zelensky stated on Saturday, June 27, that Russian forces deployed approximately 1,400 attack drones, 1,500 guided aerial bombs, and 19 missiles of various types, including ballistic missiles, against Ukraine over the past week. In a statement published on Telegram, Zelensky noted that 15 Ukrainian regions were subjected to Russian attacks during the seven-day period. He highlighted that the cities of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, and Sumy faced near-daily bombardment.

But it also over the past week has sent projectiles into Russia in the thousands. Ukraine’s asymmetric warfare strategy against Russia’s much-larger and better armed military machine has put Kiev in significantly better position – in terms of potential negotiating leverage – than the status of a year or so ago. Russian forces still have the upper-hand on the front line in the east, but the pain clearly being inflicted on Russia’s economy can’t be ignored at this point. There are reports of fuel shortages across dozens of regions and especially in Crimea over the past several days.

President Trump has lately suggested that Ukraine is doing well in the war, or at least much better than it once was. Kiev now feels the pressure to keep this narrative going, also so it can attract more and more weapons and intelligence help. But at some point Russia will feel it necessary to strongly reassert its red lines. This could come in the form of another massive escalation, and against ‘decision-making centers’.

Read more …

The party has been taken over.

• Democratic Establishment Accuses Socialists of Exploiting Ballot Access (JTN)

The Democratic Socialists of America have adopted a strategy to exploit the Democratic Party’s ballot access to boost their own candidates at the expense of incumbents, a plan which achieved remarkable success in New York City this week. The victory of two DSA-backed candidates and one former member delivered a shock to the Democratic Party establishment, which has begun to call for better policing of the party’s primaries against candidates who are only seeking to exploit it, not join it. “I say this with no ill will or animosity: if you hate the Democratic Party, then please don’t run for our nomination,” said Jaime Harrison, who served as the Democratic National Committee Chairman from 2021 to 2025.


“Don’t use our resources. Don’t rely on our volunteers. Don’t use our infrastructure. Don’t ask Democrats to invest their time, money, and energy in your campaign,” he added. “Focus on building the party you actually support.” The DSA – which calls for abandoning capitalism, defunding the police, and nationalizing key industrial sectors – has long publicly stated its intent to do just that. Ahead of the New York City primary elections on Tuesday, NYC DSA Co-Chair Gustavo Gordillo explained that his party is using the Democrats to access the ballot, but aims to achieve a fundamentally different agenda.

“We’re on the Democratic Party ballot line. We contest the primaries, and when they’re in the legislature, they’re part of the Democratic Party caucus, but we don’t agree with the way the Democratic Party establishment organizes or runs its party apparatus,” he told Spectrum News in an interview. Gordillo was rather open about taking advantage of Trump-hating Democrats. In a clip on X, he said:”We’re using the Democratic Party as a ballot-access vehicle, not because we share its goals […] We build our own organization, get elected under the Democratic label, caucus with Democrats when it’s useful, and push our own agenda from the inside.”

“I think in terms of the agenda, there’s a problem in the Democratic Party where they are funded by billionaire donors, and at the same time, they’re trying to represent the working class, and in our opinion, you have to choose between the billionaire class and the working class,” Gordillo said. “It’s just impossible to satisfy all of them.” The DSA is currently running a strategy known as the “dirty break”– “where DSA continues to run candidates on the Democratic Party’s ballot line, while building the infrastructure and base of supporters necessary to one day run our candidates independently,” as described by the party’s youth wing.

Various forms of the strategy have been referenced in party resolutions since 2019, when the party first defined it as a key goal: “to form an independent working-class party, but for now, this does not rule out DSA-endorsed candidates running tactically on the Democratic Party ballot line.” The party’s youth wing, the Young Democratic Socialists of America, identified the strategy by name in 2022, adopting a resolution at its convention that year. “Therefore, be it also resolved that YDSA is committed to, within DSA and on the left in general, a bold and transformative ‘dirty break’ approach to elections and electoralism,” according to convention documents.

The youth wing argues that the success of Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who was elected as a Democrat in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District in 2018 (she now represents the 12th after redistricting), has proven that the “dirty break” strategy is a viable one. “Tlaib often acts as a tribune of the people, using her role in Congress to agitate around working-class issues rather than pass legislation,” reads one article on the YDSA’s website. Since Tlaib’s victory in 2018, the DSA’s power in Democratic strongholds appears to be growing.

Last year, DSA member Zohran Mamdani upset the Democratic political establishment and won election to the mayor’s office in New York City on a socialist platform. Earlier this week, he flexed his newfound political influence in the city to catapult three other socialist candidates to victory in Democratic primaries for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Read more …

The one true democrat is Fetterman.

• One Democrat — and Only One — Has Had Enough of the Commies (Robert Spencer)

The communist takeover of the Democrat Party is in full swing, and some might find that surprising, as the Democrats have looked like a communist party for many years now. But what was hidden ten or twenty years ago is all out in the open now, and as ever more avowed socialists are getting elected, one Democrat is sounding the alarm. But only one.


That’s telling. The Evil Party, as conservative pundit M. Stanton Evans indelibly dubbed the Democrats back in the 1970s (he called the Republicans the Stupid Party, which is just as apt) started on the path of socialism back in 1933 with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, and confirmed its commitment to the socialist path in the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. What’s happening now is simply the open avowal of the trajectory the party has been on for nearly a century. And so it’s less surprising that only one Democrat is speaking out than it is that there is still one Democrat who believes in freedom.

And yeah, you guessed it: it’s Sen. John Fetterman (D-Common Sense). On Wednesday, Fetterman commented on X on a story about the Democrat primary victory of a Marxist convert to Islam who hates the United States and Western civilization, but is now heading to Congress anyway, Darializa Avila Chavalier. “Anti-Israel. Anti-America. Anti-Western Civilization,” Fetterman wrote. “Why am I the only Democrat in the U.S. Senate that refuses to excuse this or defend any of those self-identified communists? Because your party comrades, senator, are communists themselves, and/or cowards and opportunists. Fetterman, however, is none of those things. He declared: “I said months ago, I said the Democratic Party is becoming an orgy of socialism. These recent elections vindicate my description.”

Fetterman zeroed in on Avila Chevalier, noting that she “described America as a f*****g disgrace. She posted ‘f**k Kamala Harris’ and posted that she forgot napkins and wiped her hands on the American flag. She wants to abolish the border, abolish prisons. That is a deeply disturbed individual.” No, she isn’t actually disturbed at all. She is just a committed and consistent Marxist internationalist. Those who are arguably disturbed are the Democrat Party bosses who got behind her candidacy, and the voters who sent to Washington yet another exponent of the most catastrophically failed political and social system in the history of mankind.

Avila Chevalier won’t be alone in the nation’s capital. Referring to another Marxist, Maine senate candidate Graham Platner, by his street nickname, Fetterman quipped: “P-Hustle and Chevalier: the dirtbag left’s new power couple.” And they’re not just that. They’re also the new face of the Democrat Party, along with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and other Washington-bound socialists. Will Fetterman therefore finally leave the party, as has been rumored as often as he has denied the rumors? This time, he seemed to leave the door open to such a switch ever so slightly.

“Even if I changed my party,” Fetterman declared, “my votes or views wouldn’t change. I address this very directly. That’s the truth.” Whatever he does next, Fetterman is without any doubt one of the strangest political figures in American history. During his campaign for the Senate, he never gave any indication of being anything but a doctrinaire, down-the-line leftist, and attention focused less on his policy positions than on the fact that, after suffering a stroke, he seemed barely able to formulate a coherent sentence.

After being hospitalized for depression, however, he emerged not only able to speak clearly and lucidly, but he also began to take a number of common-sense stands, which inevitably led him away from the left. And his analysis of what has gone wrong with the Democrats is more accurate and convincing than almost all the other post-mortems. This doesn’t mean that Fetterman sees everything clearly now, and he certainly hasn’t made a full break with the left. But it’s as rare as it is refreshing to hear from an honest man.

Read more …

‘Well, damn. I thought this was the big bad boogeyman telling us this guy’s a threat to democracy, which I believe he is, but still..’

• The Obama Halo Is Starting to Flicker. Finally! (David Manney)

Charlamagne tha God didn’t sound like he was asking permission. The Breakfast Club co-host heard former President Barack Hussein Obama mock President Donald Trump as tougher from a distance than face to face, then pushed the charge back across the table. From Fox News:


“So I just didn’t understand what he meant unless he was talking about the kiki they had at the [Jimmy] Carter funeral. But to me, that goes both ways. You kikiing in his face too, ’cause by the way, Trump has been saying wild stuff about you, bro, been saying wild stuff about you and your wife, but you was just right there kikiing with him at the President Carter funeral. So I can say it goes both ways. Don’t neither one of y’all be having that energy in each other’s face. At least from what we saw,” the radio host said.

Kikiing is an informal slang term for relaxing or gossiping. Charlamagne referred to Obama and Trump speaking to one another at former President Jimmy Carter’s funeral, at times smiling and laughing with each other. Former first lady Michelle Obama did not attend. “So when I heard President Obama say that, I’m like, ‘Well, the same thing can be said for you.’ Don’t none of y’all be having that same image. Like we saw President Biden say, ‘Welcome home to Donald Trump.’ Like, so, it’s just like what are y’all? I didn’t understand that part. Like that just sounds like something slick to say on the podcast,” Charlamagne said.

“It sounds good on a podcast, OK? It goes viral. But when you really take a step back and look at it, don’t none of y’all be having that same energy for each other when you see each other. That’s what be confusing us because we be like, ‘Well, damn. I thought this was the big bad boogeyman telling us this guy’s a threat to democracy, which I believe he is, but still,'” he said. Obama, he argued, has often sounded different depending on the room, the crowd, and the moment. From a host whose platform has shaped political talk among younger black listeners, the jab carried more weight than another cable panel gripe.

Obama has spent years being treated less like a politician and more like a civic mood. To his admirers, he represented calm, cool, firsts, and finish. The new Obama Presidential Center in Chicago’s Jackson Park leans hard into that story. The center opened a week ago with four floors devoted to the Obama presidency, the 2008 campaign, the Oval Office, and the promise of democracy. Museum tickets are already sold out, with another block scheduled for July 8.

Fox News’ Jesse Waters sent a reporter to the Obama Center, which, as we were lectured, was built on stolen land — and I’m not talking about land pulled out from the public at Jackson Park — who asked visitors some difficult questions. A shrine can draw crowds and still invite questions. Stephen A. Smith, ESPN host and executive producer of First Take and host of Straight Shooter, questioned how Obama and former President Bill Clinton built large fortunes after careers in public office.

Smith’s larger point hit a sore nerve: elected leaders should prosper only when Americans are prospering too. Coming from a black broadcaster with his own huge audience, the criticism wasn’t easy to wave away as stale right-wing noise. From Fox News: The sports commentator and host of the “Straight Shooter” podcast weighed in on any profits President Donald Trump is making while serving in the nation’s highest office. “I don’t give a damn what money politicians slide into their own pockets from time to time,” Smith said on Wednesday’s episode of his podcast. “If the American people are prospering, get yours. It’s a capitalistic society.”

Smith went on to cast doubt on how former President Bill Clinton obtained his multi-million dollar net worth. “I’ll confess something to ya’ll,” Smith continued. “Clinton was a lawyer in Arkansas. Grew up poor, relatively broke. How the hell him and the Clinton Foundation is worth hundreds of millions of dollars beat me.” Smith also pointed to former President Barack Obama’s similar high net worth. “Barack Obama was a community organizer who became the president of the United States and, last time I checked, that salary ain’t over $450,000, if I remember correctly,” Smith said. “I got to double check that,” he added. “How the hell you depart from office worth over $200 million?”

According to an investigation conducted by Forbes, both Bill and Hillary Clinton have netted approximately $240 million since leaving office in 2021. Bill Clinton is reportedly responsible for the majority of the couple’s earnings, raking in $189 million by authoring books and $106 million in paid speeches. Obama owns real history; he won two national elections, became America’s first black president, and signed a health law that remade a large part of American life — and not in a good way.A legacy with weight can still carry vanity, scolding, and blind spots. The growing irritation around Obama isn’t about denying his place in history; it’s about asking why the man who preached unity so often left half the country feeling accused, condescended to, or dismissed.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2070307172634730759?s=20

The cracks didn’t appear only this week. Obama campaigned for former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024, including a pointed message to black men who weren’t sold on her candidacy. President Trump still won, and AP VoteCast found that he expanded his coalition with gains among younger voters and black and Hispanic men.

Democrats can pretend those voters misunderstood the assignment, but many voters may simply be tired of being assigned a role by a man with an ego larger than the sun.The left, who said the Obama years represented healing, sold us a bill of goods. Instead, the country got lectures on bitterness, guns, religion, race, police, and resentment. His defenders called it truth-telling, but many of us heard something colder: a gifted person who can read out loud quite well, who explained their very own country back to them with a raised eyebrow.

A man can have grace, talent, and historical importance while still leaving behind a politics that divided more than it inspired. Obama’s halo isn’t gone because too many institutions still polish it. The center in Chicago will attract crowds, glowing photos, and reverent tours. Yet the old automatic applause is much weaker.Charlamagne the God and Stephen A. Smith aren’t conservative backbenchers; they speak to audiences Obama once seemed able to reach by instinct. When voices like theirs start asking sharper questions, the problem is no longer Republican criticism.

The concern is that memory is catching up with the myth.

Read more …

“Two can certainly play the “extremist” game.”

• When Extremists Run the Government (J.B. Shurk)

Politicians, government bureaucrats, central bankers, spy agencies, and mainstream news outlets lie to us every day. For some people, the previous sentence is patently obvious. For others, that sentence represents “fringe” thinking. For certain law enforcement agencies in North America and Europe, that sentence reveals potentially dangerous “extremism.”


“Extremism” is such a morally squishy word. It means nothing. It suggests that the average beliefs of the average person in the average part of an average town are, on average, correct. Should a person’s beliefs move too far away from the “average,” then that person will eventually fall into the “extremist” abyss. Of course, the average person long believed that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. The average person long believed that bloodletting cured disease. The average person long believed in magic. Relativity, microbiology, atomic physics, and quantum mechanics belonged to the “extremists.”

Defining “extremism” depends upon which populations are included when calculating an “average.” To the average American, Islamic terrorism is religious extremism. To the average jihadi in the Middle East, terrorism is part of the Islamic faith. One man’s “extremist” is another man’s “religious cleric.” Unsurprisingly, as more jihadists migrate to America, the more supportive of Islamic terrorism the Democrat Party becomes. We now have several Hamas-supporting members of Congress who define Americans opposed to Islamic conquest as “extremists.”

For a decade, Americans were told to be on the lookout for Islamic terrorism: “If you see something, say something.” Now, if you see something and say something, you will most likely be denounced as an “Islamophobic bigot.” If the definition of “extremism” can shift 180 degrees since the Islamic terror attacks on September 11, 2001, then “extremism” is a nebulous political label.

In the United States, citizens overwhelmingly support federal legislation that would require photo ID, proof of citizenship, and other safeguards to ensure that elections across the country are free, fair, lawful, constitutional, and secure. Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans in Congress prefer to maintain the current “on your honor” system that can be gamed to permit large-scale vote fraud and rigged elections. By any polling measure, Congress’s point of view is far from that of the average American. Members of Congress, in other words, are the extremists! If you listen to the extremists in Congress, however, our elections have never been more secure.

In fact, when you look at some of the most important policy issues today, it becomes quite clear that Congress is ground zero for extremism. Most Americans want Congress to stop spending more money than it receives in taxes; Congress has put us forty trillion dollars in debt. Most Americans want secure borders and an end to illegal immigration; Congress has enabled an evil human trafficking system to exist for over fifty years that rewards criminals and has flooded the country with somewhere between fifty and a hundred million (nobody knows for sure!) illegal aliens. Most Americans are concerned about lowering fuel and food prices;

Congress has wasted trillions of dollars on “Green New Deal” scams that raise the household costs for fuel and food. Most Americans believe that college admissions and job hiring should be based on a person’s merit, skill, character, knowledge, and hard work; Congress continues to divide Americans by the color of their skin and their sexual eccentricities. Most Americans believe that men and women are biologically distinct; Congress pretends that biological sex is an imaginary social construct. Most Americans believe that a dollar saved today should maintain the same value ten, fifty, or even a hundred years from now; Congress thinks printing and spending dollars, depreciating the U.S. currency, and artificially spiking the dollar-denominated valuation of stocks, homes, and other assets is the best way to fake a constantly “improving” economy.

Most Americans believe that we should refrain from military engagements overseas whenever possible; Congress can’t ever get enough of forever-wars. Most Americans want their representatives to work for American citizens; Congress believes it should work on behalf of non-Americans all over the world. Most Americans view their country as a nation; Congress views the United States as both a global empire and a home for every person on the planet. On the most important issues, Congress is filled to the brim with extremists. They should be put on official security lists and monitored whenever they travel more than fifty feet from their taxpayer-financed homes. Instead, in the United States and throughout the West, the extremists run things.

That would explain why Christians are targeted for their beliefs. That would explain why the governments of Europe and North America have flooded their countries with unassimilable malcontents from the third world. That would explain why men are allowed into women’s restrooms and why pedophiles are accorded more respect than heterosexual married couples. That would explain why Western governments have declared war on “climate change” when most people don’t care about elites’ obsession with the weather. That would explain why so many European and North American politicians are willing to risk a nuclear war with the Russian Federation, while ordinary citizens have never been less willing to fight for the defense of their respective countries.

Perhaps the more that ordinary Westerners realize that it is the people running their governments, universities, and bureaucratic institutions who are most extreme, the less willing they become to do what those extremists say. Six years ago, the extremists locked down the world because of COVID. They closed churches, bankrupted businesses, disrupted childhood education, prevented family members from being together, and killed a lot of people with fake “vaccines.” If public health extremists tried to pull another COVID today, would ordinary Westerners do what the politicians and bureaucrats say? Or would Western citizens conclude that extremist governments endanger both their lives and liberties?

Read more …

“The entrepreneur of outrage need not solve problems; indeed, solving problems may threaten his relevance.”

• Culture of Grievance- When Victimhood Becomes Social Currency (Brooks)

Every civilization develops a moral language—a set of virtues that it celebrates and vices that it condemns. For much of human history, societies lauded courage, resilience, self-sacrifice, duty, honor, and perseverance. The individual who overcame adversity was admired. The citizen who contributed more than he consumed was esteemed. To endure hardship without surrendering one’s dignity was considered noble. Increasingly, however, modern Western society appears to have inverted this hierarchy. Today, victimhood often functions as a form of social capital.


To claim injury is to acquire moral authority. To assert oppression is frequently to gain status. Public discourse, particularly within academia, media, politics, and social media, often rewards not those who demonstrate resilience, but those who can most persuasively locate themselves within narratives of historical or contemporary disadvantage. This is not to suggest that oppression does not exist. It plainly does. Human beings have always oppressed one another. History is replete with examples of slavery, discrimination, persecution, exploitation, and injustice. Serious societies acknowledge these realities honestly.

Yet acknowledging injustice and organizing one’s entire social order around grievance are two very different enterprises. The modern culture of grievance is distinguished not merely by its concern for injustice, but by its tendency to elevate grievance itself into an identity. In such a framework, suffering confers legitimacy. Personal agency is often deemphasized in favor of structural explanations. Individual responsibility, once considered indispensable to human flourishing, is increasingly treated as secondary to historical narratives of power and oppression. Why? Part of the answer lies in incentives.

Human beings respond to incentives whether they exist in economics, politics, or culture. If a society rewards certain forms of behavior with status, attention, influence, institutional support, or financial gain, those behaviors predictably proliferate. Social media has accelerated this process dramatically. Platforms built upon visibility and engagement naturally privilege outrage, conflict, and emotional intensity. Claims of victimization generate attention. Attention generates followers. Followers generate influence. Influence often generates money, prestige, and institutional power.= Grievance, in the digital age, has become monetizable.

The entrepreneur of outrage need not solve problems; indeed, solving problems may threaten his relevance. A permanent sense of crisis sustains audiences, donations, speaking engagements, media appearances, and political mobilization. The incentive, therefore, is often not reconciliation but perpetuation.= A grievance resolved is a constituency diminished. This dynamic extends beyond social media influencers. Entire political movements, activist organizations, and institutional bureaucracies can become dependent upon the continued existence—or perceived existence—of oppression. The maintenance of moral urgency becomes essential to organizational survival.

Consequently, there exists a temptation to expand definitions continually, to discover ever more subtle forms of harm, and to reinterpret ordinary human conflicts through increasingly elaborate frameworks of oppression.

Disagreement becomes violence.

Words become trauma.

Discomfort becomes harm.

Failure becomes victimization.

Ordinary interpersonal conflict becomes evidence of systemic injustice.

The danger is not merely conceptual confusion. The danger is cultural infantilization.

Read more …

In case 2027 and 2028 get confusing.

• Bookmark and Reference Point – June 2026 (CTH)

Events in 2027 and 2028 are likely to be very confusing. As a consequence, CTH needs to establish datapoints in real time that can later be referenced and reviewed to make sense of things when CTH starts to put the data into a very difficult to accept storyline. This process is similar to setting the 2012 election “splitter strategy” as a reference; that leads to the 2014 RNC winter meeting and rules changes; that led to the 2015 lineup of RNC candidates; that led to our ability to show how the ‘splitter strategy’ was being deployed for the 2016 GOP nomination. The defeat of Jeb didn’t happen in New Hampshire 2016; his defeat was an outcome of assembling years of previous datapoints which proved the illicit roadmap and made the RNC scheme very clear from the outset.


Elon Musk purchased Twitter for $44 billion ($54.20/share) [April through October ’22]. He sold Tesla shares, leveraged more and assembled a $25 billion investment group to cover the remainder. When the financing dust settled Musk controlled Twitter and investors were in for around $25 billion. Musk later created the ancillary company xAI and when the deadline terms of the Twitter investment were due, he essentially repaid the $25 billion debt by transferring the investors into $25 billion worth of xAI holdings. [Key Point – the originating $25 billion investment was not repaid, just modified]

In 2026, Musk then did an IPO on SpaceX. This culminated in stock sales, valuations and generating $100 billion in cash on hand. A few weeks later Musk then sold 7 tranches of SpaceX bonds worth $25 billion to generate liquidity. He then used the $25 billion offering as the financial mechanism to repay the $25 billion remaining in investor debt. Summary: Twitter’s $25 billion debt transferred to $25 billion xAI stock, then transferred to $25 billion in payout or bond holdings; the option is for the original Twitter investment group to take (cash out or hold SpaceX bond paying 5% annually). [Key point – the originating $25 billion to purchase Twitter is now inside the SpaceX bonds]

This was a smart financial gameplay over the past roughly 5 years. This is how it developed and this is the reality in June of 2026. The originating $25 billion borrowed to purchase Twitter is now either: (a) fully repaid, or (b) sitting in long term SpaceX bonds (depending on investor choice). Musk and his investment friends purchased Twitter for $52 per share. Current valuation is $12 to $15. Twitter investors, Musk’s friends and Musk himself, essentially lost 76% on the purchase (total loss -$33 billion). A loss isn’t a loss until it is realized. There was strong incentive to take each of the various repayment shifts. Twitter => xAI => SpaceX bonds.

[SIDENOTE: What’s the smartest way to get rid of a $33 billion loss without hurting the investors? ANSWER: Transfer the loss to someone else. How do you transfer a $33 billion loss? You IPO a larger holding, putting the depreciated asset in the hands of retail. SpaceX investors are now unwittingly carrying the loss.] In the next few years people will argue with me about this. That’s why writing this now is important. What is outlined above is factual. Most of the money borrowed from investors to purchase Twitter is now resting inside SpaceX bonds. People will deny this, because people have a short-term financial memory for things.

The biggest Twitter investment holdings belonged to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Larry Ellison, Marc Andreessen and a host of investment funds including the sovereign state fund of Qatar.mWhen Elon Musk bought Twitter, he initially permitted sunlight into the background operation of the company. That sunlight was known as “The Twitter Files“.The files showed how the social media platform coordinated with various intelligence agencies within government on the approved information allowed to exist within the platform. Three journalists were allowed to ask the Twitter legal counsel to run search terms and review the responses (if approved by the legal counsel). That’s how the research worked.

The three journalists were Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger. Thanks to the Twitter Files and the public interest around them, Bari Weiss launched/expanded her online media network The Free Press. Bari Weiss was a Ron DeSantis supporter. Elon Musk was a Ron DeSantis supporter. Ron DeSantis 2024 campaign was launched on Twitter. The Twitter File research group was shut down by Elon Musk with no immediate public statement as to why.

Billionaire Larry Ellison (Oracle) retained his Twitter holdings as well as his relationship with Musk. When Twitter was under attack from Democrats (’22, ’23, ’24) Ellison was the financial backstop and stabilizing force. Larry Ellison then purchased the TikTok platform with Marc Andreeson. Larry and David Ellison then purchased CBS-Paramount. David Ellison then installed Bari Weiss as CBS News Editor in Chief and bought her company The Free Press. David Ellison, the technology heir son to Larry Ellison who controls Paramount, the owner of CBS, is poised to complete a $111 billion purchase of CNN’s parent company Warner Bros/Discovery as soon as July 2026.

Billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison now directly or indirectly controls and influences: Twitter, TikTok, CBS and CNN. As noted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September of 2025, control and influence of TikTok and Twitter was the #1 and #2 most important strategic geopolitical interests of the government of Israel. These were Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own words. Billionaire Larry Ellison is a very strong supporter of the Netanyahu government.

PREDICTION: If Marco Rubio stays out of the 2028 race [big ‘if’], then all of the Larry Ellison holdings will be used to promote or position Florida Governor Ron DeSantis over Vice-President JD Vance. The Israel -vs- Qatar narrative is based on an anti-Vance operation. Prepositioned politics. [My ‘out there’ suspicion is political narrative control is the entire reason Twitter was purchased]

Read more …

Now the rest..

• Volkswagen To Slash 100,000 Jobs (RT)

Volkswagen is considering closing four German factories and cutting up to 100,000 jobs, Reuters has reported. Amid soaring energy costs and competition from China, the company’s profits have plummeted in recent years. Should the cuts go ahead, Volkswagen will close factories in Hanover, Zwickau, and Emden, as well as an Audi plant in Neckarsulm, Reuters reported on Friday, citing sources within the company. These closures would result in the loss of 45,000 jobs, on top of the 50,000 layoffs agreed upon with trade unions in 2024.


Volkswagen executives will discuss the cuts at a meeting next month. According to a separate report by Germany’s Manager Magazin, the company is also weighing a 15% cut in investment over the next five years. A spokesperson for the world’s second-largest carmaker said that they would not comment on “confidential documents,” but admitted that “the entire group, including its brands and subsidiaries, must undergo far-reaching change.”

Volkswagen employs more than 667,000 people worldwide, almost half of them in Germany. However, the company has been forced to scale back production at home since 2022, when Berlin’s decision to abandon Russian gas imports in favor of renewables and expensive American liquified natural gas (LNG) left the industry reeling from higher energy costs.

The German economy has experienced two years of contraction followed by two years of sub-1% growth. Volkswagen already closed one automobile assembly plant, in Dresden, last December – the first time it had closed a factory in Germany in its nine-decade history. BASF, Bosch, Continental, and more than a dozen other German manufacturers have closed one or more facilities over the last four years.

With energy costs eating into Volkswagen’s profits, the company’s electric vehicles are no longer able to compete with offerings from its Chinese rivals. Once the dominant automaker in China, Volkswagen now sells fewer vehicles there than domestic brands BYD and Geely. In Europe, BYD and fellow Chinese brands Chery, SAIC, and Leapmotor have all doubled their market share over the last year. Back in Germany, Volkswagen’s internal union and the IG Metall metalworkers’ union have vowed to resist the job cuts. “Should such plans go ahead, we would do everything in our power to prevent them,” the organizations said in a joint statement on Friday.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2070544213326823464?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 27 2026

Jun 272026
 
 June 27, 2026  Posted by at 9:21 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  26 Responses »


VIncent van Gogh Railway carriages 1888


• U.S. Strikes Iran After More Ceasefire Violations (Salgado)
• Damage To US Bases In Gulf So Extensive The Pentagon May Not Rebuild Them (ZH)
• The Democrat Party Is Having a Meltdown, and It’s About to Get Nasty (Margolis)
• How Bad Is the Democrat Party Civil War? (Athena Thorne)
• The Far Left Can Crush Republicans in Midterms (CTH
• Musk’s Starlink Plots To Become A Mobile Carrier (ZH)
• Privacy Rights of Illegals More Important than Honest Elections (PCR)
• The Party of Algae and ‘Our Democracy’ (James Howard Kunstler)
• Supreme Court Delivers Major Wins for Administration on Immigration (Turley)
• ‘Our War Against Russia’: Germany Is Re-normalizing The Unthinkable (Amar)
• Polish Opposition To EU Membership For Ukraine Surges (RT)
• Scandinavian Rapes Rival Britain’s (Paul Craig Roberts)

 


 

https://twitter.com/LattinaBrown/status/2070118340803100819?s=20 https://twitter.com/Juliedonuts/status/2070336483634909193?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2070482023093854554?s=20 https://twitter.com/Gunblaze1969/status/2070329381466288483?s=20

 


 


Better hit hard,

• U.S. Strikes Iran After More Ceasefire Violations (Salgado)

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed that it conducted airstrikes in response to the Iranian regime’s provocative and dangerous attacks on international shipping. On June 25, reports surfaced of the Iranian regime once again targeting shipping.


As of Friday morning, Reuters and Fox News’ China expert Gordon Chang reported that Iranian state TV again said the regime had closed the Strait of Hormuz. Soon after that, President Donald Trump confirmed the Iranian strikes on the key economic waterway. “The Islamic Republic of Iran shot at least four One Way Attack Drones at Ships transversing the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump posted on Truth Social Friday. “One of the Drones solidly hit the upper deck of a large and very expensive Cargo Carrying Ship. Damage was done, but the Ship was able to proceed on its way. We knocked down three other Drones. Obviously, this is a foolish violation of our Ceasefire Agreement.”

Following on from Trump’s statement, CENTCOM conducted the strikes. The June 26 press release from CENTCOM stated that the strikes were specifically in response to the Iranian regime’s ceasefire violations in the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. aircraft struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites after Iran hit M/V Ever Lovely on June 25 with a one-way attack drone. The Singapore-flagged cargo ship was exiting the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast at the time of Iran’s attack.

The unwarranted aggression against commercial shipping by Iranian forces clearly violated the ceasefire. Furthermore, Iran’s dangerous behavior undermined freedom of navigation as commerce increasingly flows through the vital international trade corridor. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime has been violating the ceasefire practically every day. The murderous mullahs are not going to agree to stop claiming sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz or to stop encouraging terrorist proxies like Hezbollah to wreak havoc. No matter how much the U.S. government sweetens the deal, the fundamentalist jihadis in Tehran prefer war.

The official U.S. military release ends: “CENTCOM forces continue to provide safe passage coordination and support to commercial vessels transiting the strait. The U.S. military remains present and vigilant to ensure all aspects of the agreement with Iran are adhered to, obeyed, and in full force and effect.”

The regime’s ambassador at the United Nations just bragged about the Hezbollah alliance, negotiator and Foreign Minister Mohammad-Baquer “Death to America” Ghalibaf keeps threatening America, and the mayor of Tehran is already talking about round two of the “existential” war against the “great Satan” America and the coming of the Mahdi (Islamic messiah). In other words, unfortunately, the Iranian leadership is not talking like a group of men interested in ending conflict.

Read more …

That’s a risk if you have so many of them.

• Damage To US Bases In Gulf So Extensive The Pentagon May Not Rebuild Them (ZH)

With each week and month that passes since the start of Trump’s Operation Epic Fury, more and more reports have come out revealing the massive extent of damage to US military facilities in the Mideast region based on Iran’s retaliation across the region. This is often based on fresh satellite imaging and analysis, despite US government pressure for these research entities to refrain from publishing such data, and to censor open source photographs. After a series of deep investigative reports, it has been proven time and again that the Pentagon and Washington officials have been downplaying and covering up the real extent of devastation caused by Iranian missiles and drones.


More fresh reporting in the Wall Street Journal once again adds confirmation to this, referencing satellite imagery which shows far more serious damage at a key naval base in Bahrain than the US has publicly acknowledged. The damage is said to be bad enough that the Pentagon is mulling shrinking its troop presence there and elsewhere in the Gulf, including a potential reduced troop footprint in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran is hailing this reported pullback as a significant strategic victory produced by its retaliation.

Unnamed officials were cited in the report as saying American forces could retreat as far westward as Israel, after some bases essentially became unusable or uninhabitable altogether. Concerning the Bahrain base details, WSJ writes: The U.S. Navy base in Bahrain was repeatedly targeted between late February and June. Strikes that got through caused extensive damage, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of satellite imagery, social-media footage and interviews with current and former servicemembers—damage that the Pentagon hasn’t publicly acknowledged. Hit hard were the command headquarters and at least a dozen other buildings, along with two satellite communications terminals.

The military said no one was killed at the base, known as Naval Support Activity Bahrain, and that the strikes didn’t significantly impact operations. The U.S. evacuated most personnel but has kept a small staff on the ground. Notably in Bahrain the headquarters building for the US Navy in the Middle East was struck and seriously damaged, along with sensitive communications centers being destroyed. But here is a key, somewhat unexpected line in the Journal report: “The extensive damage done to America’s sole naval base in the Middle East – along with hits to at least 20 U.S. sites across the region, including military installations and diplomatic facilities – has the U.S. re-evaluating its entire footprint in the region, according to U.S. officials familiar with the deliberations.

This means that damaged structures and bases may not be rebuilt at all, and the sites may just be abandoned as future key US military hubs, WSJ says. The draw-down of expensive Pentagon comms centers could include from Bahrain: “The military is now considering revamping the base in Bahrain, reducing the U.S. presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and moving some bases or base functions west, farther from the reach of Iranian missiles and drones, according to the officials familiar with the deliberations,” WSJ writes. Reconstruction costs would be staggering, per the same report:

The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated in a report published Tuesday that the total cost of the war was about $40 billion. That estimate included their calculus of $2.2 billion to $5.1 billion in damage to U.S. bases, based on structures that CSIS identified as damaged. The Journal used satellite images and social-media footage to identify which buildings on the Bahrain base were damaged. To estimate what it would cost to construct buildings of the same types today, the Journal reviewed a publicly available Defense Department cost model as well as procurement reports. The estimates only cover construction, and don t include other costs that could factor into the total if the buildings were to be rebuilt, such as debris removal and reinforcement.

“The estimated construction costs at NSA Bahrain totaled about $400 million,” it continues. But ultimately a draw-back from these locations would be based on the proven reality that Iran can easily hit them at any time. Some further implications to all this are that in any future flare-up or even return to all-out war between the US and Iran, American forces would find themselves executing a conflict much further away from the theatre itself. For example, dozens of major Air Force refueling tankers have already had to be relocated far away from the Gulf, to places like Tel Aviv. Many were destroyed in the opening weeks of the war while parked at Gulf airfields, clearly over-exposed as it seems Iran knew exactly where to target. Back in late March, US officials admitted to the NY Times that Iran’s significantly retaliation damaging US bases was “a war that is much harder to prosecute.”

Read more …

“.. its new kingmaker, socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani..”

• The Democrat Party Is Having a Meltdown, and It’s About to Get Nasty (Margolis)

The Democrat Party has a problem that the establishment doesn’t have a clue how to deal with. Its most radical members of Congress aren’t radical enough for the activist base anymore, and one by one, they’re getting picked off by candidates aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, should have been safe. But Darializa Avila Chevalier beat him while running on a platform of shutting down prisons, eliminating ICE, erasing the border, and defunding police. She also opposes deporting illegal immigrants, period, including violent criminals.


It gets worse. In New York’s 10th District, Brad Lander demolished Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who was no moderate. He was one of the loudest anti-Trump voices in the Democrat caucus and the lead counsel in the party’s first impeachment attempt against President Donald Trump. Didn’t matter. The base wanted more.Then in New York’s 7th District, Claire Valdez won the seat Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) is vacating. Valdez ran on citizenship and voting rights for illegal immigrants, taxpayer-funded transgender treatments, and scrapping private health insurance for every American, not just those on Obamacare. And she won.

This was a stunning rebuke of the party establishment in favor of its new kingmaker, socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and the voters just delivered a vote of no confidence that’s now got people inside the party calling for new leadership. Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) went on SiriusXM’s “Straight Shooter with Stephen A,” with Stephen A. Smith and suggested that both Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) should step aside for new leadership. Her argument: the party still hasn’t recovered from getting wiped out in 2024.

“To me, the lesson was simple. Democrats had too many priorities. They tried to make everyone happy and answer every question. When you prioritize everything, no one knows what you actually stand for,” Slotkin told Smith. She contrasted that scattered approach with Trump’s relentlessly singular message. “He came in with one clear message. He said, ‘I’m going to make your life more affordable. I’m going to put more money in your pocket’… He won because he kept his message simple and focused on the issue Americans cared most about,” she said, adding that a year and a half after Trump’s win, “every day there’s a debate within the party about the path forward.”

Slotkin is supposedly part of the party’s moderate wing. Now, I don’t think there really is a moderate wing of the party anymore, but regardless, hearing this from her tells you how bad things have gotten. “That’s why I believe we need significant new leadership,” Slotkin said. “The old models are no longer working, and that includes the Democratic Party.” She compared her own party to a “circular firing squad,” where “everyone is reacting to the crisis, but too few people are talking about what they actually want to accomplish,” calling it “a fundamental failure of leadership.”

When Smith asked her whether she meant Jeffries and Schumer specifically, Slotkin didn’t blink. “I’m saying that if people can’t recognize that the game has fundamentally changed and can’t adapt, then they need to make room for others who can.” The Democrat Party is being cannibalized from the inside, and its leadership has no idea what to do about it. Now you’ve got a sitting senator publicly suggesting her own party’s top two leaders need to go. We’re four months away from the midterm elections, and the Democrat Party is on the verge of a civil war, and it’s about to get nasty.

Read more …

James Carville .

• How Bad Is the Democrat Party Civil War? (Athena Thorne)

Senior Democrat officials and strategists are increasingly nervous about the radicalization of their party, and some of them are courageous enough to speak out about it. My colleagues here at PJ Media have been covering the growing divide between the old-school Dems and the surging radical Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) — and worse, some outright commies — who are shouldering them aside and trying to grab the wheel.


One of the venerable Democrat elders bravely pushing back against the red scourge infecting his party is James Carville. I confess that I have always loved Carville, and one of my longstanding political sorrows is that he isn’t one of ours. He’s a brilliant strategist — he coined the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid!” — and he’s a hoot to listen to. Unlike today’s leftists, Carville doesn’t hate Republicans — he married one! And he is of the fading breed of Democrats who truly love America and want what’s best for her.

Sadly, Carville is no longer comfortable in his own party. He discussed the dangerous new wave with Al Hunt on the pair’s podcast, Politics War Room, on Thursday. Like Carville, Hunt is a center-leftist and seasoned political oracle, and he’s also unhappy with the new crop of far-left hotheads invading the DNC. He expressed his frustration that, in this year’s Democratic midterm primaries, the sane winning candidates are getting no press while the crazies are dominating the coverage, wrecking the party’s brand and threatening its midterm performance.

Hunt began the discussion, which focused on New York State primary results for U.S. House seats, by outlining NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s endorsed candidates’ wins. “So, New York City Mayor Mamdani endorsed three candidates. They won, but they may complicate the politically existential question of winning in November,” Hunt said. “Those New York City seats are all safe Democratic seats, but two of those candidates are socialists, and one, Darializa Chevalier… is really a problem. She has made despicable comments, calling Obama evil, Biden a rapist, called for defunding the police and ending prisons.”

While some of those are actually mainstream Democrat positions these days, Hunt fretted that “Republicans are gleeful. Trump and others already are saying this is the Democratic Party.”After touting Cait Conley’s primary victory for New York’s 17th Congressional District, Hunt said, “That’s one good note, but I must tell you, James, some of the other stuff worries me.” True to form, Carville lit into the party crashers with his colorful “Ragin’ Cajun” rhetoric. Focusing on Chevalier, he said that she “has attacked interracial relationships and the American flag. Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you. I’m sorry, I’m just not.”

He then revealed how very serious he considered the situation to be by calling for his own party to do something drastic: “And I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the S word: schism. I really do.” “Everybody’s always said, ‘No, no, we’re a coalition, we’re a big tent,’” Carville went on, but there’s “just some s**t that I can’t be in the same tent with.” Good on him. The legendary pundit spent some time railing against the injustice of the press making the scary newcomers into the face of the party (at which, we on the right have earned a hearty laugh) before going back to his desire to kick them right out of the DNC.

“But the idea — the idea! — that we must neglect everything else that has gone on, all of these other primaries, all the recruits Jason has, all the huge, phenomenal successes we’ve had, and declare that the party is now under the control of a Democratic Socialist of New York City is insane,” he fumed. “But, and understand, these people do not like Democrats; not only are they not Democrats, they wish Democrats poorly. So, I just cannot — maybe there’s a way that you can say to — I guess Mamdani is the leader of it? — is, you know, you insist that… the people that run under your banner run as a Democratic Socialist, and don’t use the Democratic Party as your guideline, and let’s negotiate the terms of a schism here. Maybe we can, we can part under some kind of advantageous terms for both of us. But I’m done. I’m not in that f*****g political party.”

I applaud the man’s outright rejection of the Marxist slime that is now roughly a quarter of his party, and growing. The fact that this is the result of the kind of progressive schooling and cultural indoctrination he has spent his career championing may be lost on him, but at least his eyes are open now. “I am totally comfortable in a political party that spends time questioning the policies of the government of Israel. In fact, I’m enthusiastic about that,” Carville clarified, but “I don’t want to be in a political party that denies the right of the state of Israel to exist. That’s just not — I just can’t do that. I’m sorry. It’s just not doable.”

Hunt concurred, saying the DSA candidates “are a great gift to Donald Trump.” He further fretted over what it meant for Democrat control of the House, theorizing that “it is absolutely crucial now that the Democrats don’t just win in November in the House, pick up eight or 10 seats, because that group of crazies will absolutely just sabotage Hakeem Jeffries every second way.” Instead, now “They’ve got to pick up 25 seats” to dilute the far left’s power. And that’s not likely.

“And I think what worries me about this group,” Hunt went on, “look, you have the squad, AOC. I don’t agree with much of what AOC stands for or goes for, but she’s smart,” (pause here to compose yourself), “and she caused trouble in the beginning. Pelosi made clear that wouldn’t work, and she’s ended up actually a pretty good member. I don’t think this group has that potential.”

Carville agreed. “I can’t be in the same party with Ms. Chevalier. Can’t do it. Sorry,” he declared. bWhile I don’t think it will be enough to send Carville over to my party any time soon, I am proud of him for standing up to these frightening Marxists. Unfortunately, he has probably underestimated just how far gone his own party is. The frightening Marxists have all the energy right now, and he’s in for a rude awakening when he discovers how little use they have for an old relic like him. Here’s the whole thing if you care to watch it:

Read more …

“..if They Just Give Professional Republicans Everything They Want..”

“If the Communists and Progressives can put their crazy into a box for a few months ..”

• The Far Left Can Crush Republicans in Midterms (CTH)

This is a very unusual election year. This year, more than any other election year, the Democrats have two major weapons they can deploy to crush the Republican party in every election:


First, give the Washington DC Republicans everything they want.
Second, be completely silent about it, and control their crazy.
Again, this is a weird election year; I’ll explain.

If the Communists and Progressives, together with all the various subsects under the tent of ‘Democrats’ can have enough self-discipline to follow this guide – they will crush almost every republican candidate and win every key race. It will be the biggest electoral wipeout since 2010, but they also have to be absolutely silent over the next several months.

If the Communists and Progressives can put their crazy into a box for a few months, they will defeat their opposition. Democrats need to take a long summer vacation, stay completely silent, avoid anything political and surface again in late October. That’s it. That’s all they need to do. They can put every nickel of donations and fundraising in the bank and exit the 2026 midterms with billions in saved funds – But they’ve got to hide their crazy; I mean really hide it. The professional Republican Party in Washington DC is completely disconnected from the American voter, and more importantly from their base of support. This creates a very unusual dynamic.

First, let me explain what Republican priorities the Democrats need to support: • Republicans will demand more funding for Ukraine. So, Democrats should give it to them. Two-thirds of the American voters are against the stupid spending on this nonsense proxy war against Russia. If Democrats quietly, silently, just let the GOP fund their proxy war, voters will punish them. Democrat voters will not care about this, and GOP voters will sit home in frustration.

• Republicans will demand re-authorization of FISA (702). Again, two-thirds of the American people do not support warrantless surveillance of American citizens. Again, the Democrats should just give them this demand and then remind voters this is the Washington DC Republican priority. Democrat voters will not generally care about this obscure issue, and the GOP base will again stew in frustration. BONUS: Democrats then get to weaponize the authority when they get power again and target republicans creating more frustration. See how easy this is? There are many more policy points just like these. Why? Well, basically, this is a year when the professional republican priorities in Washington DC are entirely disconnected from their base voter.

• The Republican voters have asked DC Republicans for a few simple things like:

  • Voting integrity (SAVE act);
  • Fast track migrant deportations;
  • Confronting lawlessness (Antifa et al);
  • Arrests for criminal corruption and transparently visible violent activity;
  • Spending priorities that focus on Americans’ first, not migrants or foreign interests.

That’s essentially it. That’s the proverbial “big ask” that is just too much for the Washington DC Professional Republican party to accept. Washington DC Republicans are fighting every voter ‘ask’ and telling voters their requests are ridiculous and stupid.

• DC Republicans always hate republican voters. There’s a long history of this. As a consequence, the only thing that will motivate the republican voters in ’26 and ’28, is the insanity of the Communist left. Republican voters have nothing to vote ‘for‘ because all their ‘asks’ are just, well, being ignored. If you are a Democrat this is easy, Republicans are handing you the election by keeping their base voters frustrated and at home. However, this also requires the professional Democrats to do something challenging for them; don’t be crazy.

The only thing the communist/leftists need to do in order to win the election, is not be crazy. Actually, just shut up – don’t talk about all that stuff in their head – bank all their donations, do nothing else. Don’t even campaign. Just be completely and entirely quiet. If the Communists can find enough self-restraint to do that in every election this November, literally just go on vacation until late October, they will crush the Republican party for a decade without spending a dime.

• Republican voters are exhausted. They are exhausted from asking for the easiest and simplest things and getting rejected and dismissed by the totality of all Washington DC Republican political leadership.Obviously, this level of DC disconnect is not accidental. The Republican preference to be in the minority is well known and very well documented. We all understand how each wing of the UniParty operates.

The left-wing demands power. The right-wing demands money. Democrats use money to get power; Republicans use power to get money. Donors to the left-wing support the ideology; the ideology of the right-wing is dependent on donors. This is the difference between the two wings of the DC UniParty.On the bright side, Communists often struggle to rein in their extreme behavior, so there’s a chance the Democrats could stir up enough wild ideas to drive Republican voters to turn out in large numbers against them.

Read more …

No, Musk is not interested in being a phone company. He wants what comes after the phone.

• Musk’s Starlink Plots To Become A Mobile Carrier (ZH)

The signs were already in plain sight that Elon Musk’s Starlink was positioning itself to challenge the big three U.S. wireless operators: Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. One of the clearest signals was SpaceX’s $17 billion deal for EchoStar wireless spectrum last year, followed by a recent trademark filing for “Starlink Mobile.” We noted in December: “SpaceX Trademark Filing Signals “Starlink Mobile” May Soon Take Aim At AT&T, Verizon”. Now, the Financial Times reports that SpaceX Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell told institutional investors during the IPO roadshow that the company is considering selling mobile contracts directly to consumers and may eventually build its own terrestrial U.S. mobile network.


“The move would require Starlink to build a new retail offering by selling mobile contracts to individual customers, competing directly with the three big US network operators Verizon Wireless, AT&T and T-Mobile,” FT wrote in a note.

The plan follows SpaceX’s $17 billion purchase of EchoStar spectrum licenses last fall, a deal that could be viewed as the foundation for a terrestrial mobile network. “A direct-to-consumer mobile offering would give SpaceX access to a far larger market than satellite broadband alone, potentially reducing its reliance on telecoms partners that currently act as intermediaries between Starlink’s satellites and end users,” FT wrote in the report. Starlink has already signed a number of deals with carriers, notably with T-Mobile:

Pathways for Starlink:
Should SpaceX fail to reach an MVNO deal, or simply desires owners’ economics and quickly, T-Mobile seems to us the clear choice given their momentum (HSD % growth), maverick culture, pure-play wireless provider, and existing Starlink partnership. Another thought would be to acquire AT&T. SpaceX could sell AT&T’s fiber homes (LEO solutions will likely have a very difficult time succeeding in a Cable/Fiber overlapped footprint) at ~$2,500/home essentially paying for AT&T’s wireless network at a far less expensive price compared to T-Mobile. As for financing, SpaceX could theoretically execute a secondary offering for only modest dilution to its current substantial market cap.

Williams noted that any Starlink entry into the wireless industry is bearish for legacy operators. He continued: “Any entry of SpaceX could be highly bearish for the wireless industry. As such, we are hopeful but not convinced that no carrier will budge and cave on an MVNO agreement. As for M&A, SpaceX would need a willing seller. With T-Mobile the best fit, this SpaceX dynamic could be what motivated T-Mobile owner Deutsche Telekom to seek total ownership and control of its US cash cow subsidiary as reported in April (LINK). In a defensive move, T-Mobile could acquire a cable company. While investors could roll their eyes on purchasing “yesterday’s technology”, and it would be an overt contradiction to T-Mobile management’s messaging, a cable acquisition could serve two purposes.

Starlink’s true intention was revealed by Musk last fall:

https://twitter.com/spacanpanman/status/1965642222826590413?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1965642222826590413%7Ctwgr%5Eab75303222ec1c2362e0ba267794e3b719df12d5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Ftechnology%2Fmusks-starlink-plots-become-mobile-carrier-td-cowen-sees-possible-t-mobile-buyout

Speculation mounts…

Read more …

“At least the Romans fought. The pansy nations of the West collapsed from self-doubt taught to them by white liberals.”

• Privacy Rights of Illegals More Important than Honest Elections (PCR)

Yesterday I wrote about how immigrant-invader federal judge Sparkle Sooknanan from Trinidad and Tobago, a Biden last minute DEA appointment, blocked President Trump from using the federal database to limit voting in US elections to American citizens. Today I am writing about the two journalists who reported the story. Judging by their names, Fatima Hussein and Ali Swenson, they are also immigrant-invaders. [..] Fatima and Ali tell us that during the 2024 presidential campaign, “Trump pushed false claims of widespread noncitizen voting,” but noncitizen voting “is rare, accounting for just a tiny fraction of those on state voter rolls.”


Fatima and Ali tell us that Trump’s efforts to confine voting to citizens are just an effort to takeover from Congress and states how elections are run. Trump “also has tried to force voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, ban mail ballots from counting if they are received after Election Day and prohibit the Postal Service from mailing ballots to people not on an approved list of voters. Most of those steps have been blocked by various courts.” The courts, of course, are Democrat ones as the Democrats have thrown their interest in with those of immigrant-invaders. Between them they have blocked Trump’s intention to deport the millions of illegal immigrant-invaders in the US. When did you last hear of a deportation?

In other words, Fatima and Ali regard using the federal data base, the government’s own information, to prevent illegal voting as not only addressing a non-problem but also as an attempt by the executive to take over state and Congressional election responsibilities. In this way she appeals to the 50 states and Congress to support her ruling.

Immigrant-invader Sooknanan’s reasoning would also apply to states and Congress were they to legislate the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements data to prevent noncitizens from voting. Somehow it is OK to use the official data to prevent illlegals from obtaining benefits to which they have no claims, but not to prevent them from voting, which the Democrat states encourage them to do.

Immigrant-invader Sooknanan’s argument is that using the data to prevent illegal voting violates privacy and the right of citizens to vote as errors in the data could prevent a legitimate voter from voting. In this way Sooknanan dresses up doing nothing about illegal voting as protecting the right of citizens to vote. She also seems to give the Constitutional right to privacy–already a dead-letter right under a variety of laws that permit spying without warrants and a variety of practices such as face recognition street cameras–to non-citizens. If non-citizens have Constitutional rights, then how are they non-citizens? Giving non-citizens Constitutional rights is a way of turning them into citizens.

Far down in the article, Fatima and Ali tell us that the plaintiffs who brought the challenge to Sooknanan’s court consists of the League of Women Voters, something called the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and five unnamed people. As there is no electronic privacy, it is unclear what the center does. We are not told why five people think that the way to protect privacy is to prevent identifying illegal voters, and not by banning warrantless spying, street cameras, and the multitude of invasions of our privacy by government now legislated in law.

The plaintiff attorney is Nikhel Sus, possibly another immigrant-invader. If you can stop scrolling your cell phone long enough, have a look around you. Notice how many of the names of journalists, editors, professors, judges, state, local, and federal legislators, prosecutors, corporate executives, doctors, and lawyers are not white ethnic names. Influence and power are passing out of the hands of white ethnics. As white liberals have demonized white ethnics as racist exploiters, second class citizenship is the best hope of white ethnics.

In the United States white heterosexual males have been second class citizens for 60 years since Alfred Blumrosen, a Jew, created a system of race, gender, and sexual preference quotas that still discriminat against white hetetrosexual gentile males.

In Britain British children have had no protection for 30 years against black immigrant-invader rape gangs. There are more white ethnic British parents in prison for complaining about the immigrant-invaders than there are rapists of their children. The demise of ethnic Britain has unfolded precisely as Enoch Powell forecast in 1968, except he thought that the British would fight.

In Scandanavia the immigrant-invader rape gangs have focused on adult women who are afraid of reporting their rapes because the police have been indoctrinated to doubt their reports and to investigate them as committing racist hate crimes against black immigrant-invaders. See today’s accompanying article about Scandinavian women who unprotected by police against rape are afraid to leave their homes.

In France the leader of France’s largest political party has been banned by the French Establishment from running for public office because she stands for the ethnic French nation against the immigrant-invaders and the French elite’s ideal of a multicultural Tower of Babel. The demise of France has unfolded precisely as Jean Raspail forecast in 1973.

In the United States the anti-white Woke Democrat Party has promoted immigrant-invaders to federal judgeships and prosecutorial offices where they even tried to imprison the President of the United States. The demise of America has unfolded precisely as Wilmot Robertson predicted in 1972.

From all appreances the insouciant, dumbshit, clueless, stupid beyond all belief white ethnicities in every Western country are unable to mount any resistance to their demise. It is unavoidable that they will cease to exist, having handed over their nations to immigrant-invaders.

At least the Romans fought. The pansy nations of the West collapsed from self-doubt taught to them by white liberals.

Read more …

“. . .a political party doesn’t lose 95 percent of a registration advantage because voters are kinda annoyed. Something much, much deeper is going on.” — Richard Landwirth

• The Party of Algae and ‘Our Democracy’ (James Howard Kunstler)

Okay, convince me that gay-Islamic-race-communism is a “progressive” political program America is going to buy like corn flakes. The Lefty-left wants to think so, as it lurches from one peak of mental illness to an even greater one in the 130 days to the midterms. Look how successful they’ve been with open borders, defunding the police, men in the girl’s swim lane, no cash bail, sex-change surgery for kids, free-for-all elections, hatin’ on white people, and open Medicare fraud. The new re-branding strategy as “Democratic Socialism” only tells you that reality has ceased to interest them.


No, winning electoral districts stuffed with illegal aliens in bright blue cities with tiny overall voter turnouts won’t sweep the nation like love. More likely it’s a harbinger of the party’s approaching death, like the Whigs going down the drain in 1852, gurgle-gurgle. Advocating to destroy American society is a poor sales pitch. The party’s old-line leadership frantically seeks some way to neutralize the rising influence of Zohran Mamdani and his disciples, but so far nothing works. An odor of desperation fills the air.

One thing you can say about the gay-Islamic-race-communists is that they are well-organized, which is understandable since their political program resembles an ant farm, a dis-individuated collective with insectile characteristics, workers and soldiers toiling in mindless solidarity to occupy more electoral territory so as to vanquish their “oppressors,” Trump and the big feet of his capitalist minions.

Meanwhile, though, the money flows dry up as the old Big Donor Dawgs freak-out at the prospect of having their fortunes confiscated, eaten by this advancing ant-swarm, while Scott Bessent and Todd Blanche work to disassemble the giant, hive-like matrix of NGOs that, for years, laundered US taxpayer dollars through the Democratic Party’s patronage system. In New York City, Philly, LA, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, Portland, the NGOs furnished comfortable salaries for young activists churned out remorselessly by Higher Ed, but all that’s starting to look like a bygone Shangri-la, a lost world.

“Many Democratic primary voters, however, are in no mood for defensiveness. As they see it, they’ve been failed by a cautious, compromising establishment, and they’re going to overthrow it.” —Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times

Of course, the loss of those cushy jobs and perqs has pitched that young demographic into a yet greater rage, prompting them to wreak vengeance and havoc on the system that took their “entitlements” away. Activists want to do activism, which is not necessarily the same as working for a living. It’s working for an ideal, a cause — to abolish the very society based on working for a living and replace it with a parent-like, hovering, all-powerful government that provides your every need by “seizing the means of production.”

Read more …

“Trump was elected on the pledge to reverse these policies by using the same discretion that his predecessor employed to open the border.”

• Supreme Court Delivers Major Wins for Administration on Immigration (Turley)

“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place … before the person enters that place.”


Those words may seem ripped from the pages of Dr. Seuss but they are taken from the 6-3 majority opinion of Justice Samuel Alito in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. They captured the lost-in-translation character of the Court’s fight over whether undocumented persons must be physically present in the United States to make an asylum claim. In one of a pair of major immigration wins for the Trump Administration, the Court ruled that asylum seekers who are stopped on the other side of the Southern border are not present in the United States. If treated as inside the country despite being outside it, these individuals would be allowed to enter and remain while their asylum claims are pending.

The case highlights the lengths to which the Biden Administration went to facilitate the entry of undocumented persons into the country. It rescinded a policy of “metering” that was put into place by the Obama Administration (and later restored and expanded by the Trump Administration). In seeking to bar Trump from enforcing the same policy as the Obama Administration, the three liberal justices sounded positively Clintonesque in debating what the meaning of “in” is. Justice Sonia Sotomayor denounced the majority’s “illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: ‘in.’ Words, however, must be read in context and with attention to how they fit into the statute as a whole.”

In their view, “contextual” reading means that you can be “in” the United States without actually being “in” the United States. The sharp disagreement in the opinions spilled over to the release of the opinions. Justice Alito read a summary of his opinion, followed by a more lengthy reading by Justice Sotomayor of her dissent. The stinging dissent produced a rare rebuttal from the bench by Alito, who was surprised by the extended comments and said that, if he had not been blindsided, he would have said more, including how “the policy in question was adopted by two very different administrations.”

The court also delivered a major victory in Mullin v. Doe, upholding the right of the Administration to strip more than 356,000 Syrian and Haitian immigrants of temporary protection status. Again, lower courts afforded the Obama and Biden Administrations greater leeway in granting such status than Trump in rescinding it. The combination of the two opinions offers significant advances for the Administration in addressing millions of undocumented persons in this country. In her dissent in Mullin, Sotomayor invoked the image of the voyage of the M. S. St. Louis, where Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were not allowed entry in various countries only to be returned to Germany, where many died in the Holocaust.

The problem with the analogy is that all of those on the St. Louis were demonstrably in flight from lethal persecution. Virtually all of the asylum claims made at our borders are rejected as unsupported or invalid. Immigration groups hand out material across the border, coaching immigrants to claim asylum status to guarantee that they can stay in the country for years before any final adjudication can be made. The acceptance rate of these claims is currently below five percent.

The question is how to limit such constructive entries if being “in” the United States does not require actually being in the United States. More importantly, absent a clear legal basis for such constructive entries, it is not clear why courts should be able to dictate such policies. The control of our borders has long been an area marked by heavy deference to the Executive Branch. During the Biden Administration, courts often embraced that discretion as the Administration allowed over ten million unvetted immigrants to enter.

Trump was elected on the pledge to reverse these policies by using the same discretion that his predecessor employed to open the border.

Read more …

“Spiegel’s Barbarossa cover is beyond bad framing – it reflects a country where war is being made to seem conceivable again..”

• ‘Our War Against Russia’: Germany Is Re-normalizing The Unthinkable (Amar)

For the anniversary of Operation Barbarossa, the German name for the attack on the Soviet Union of 22 June 1941, Germany’s declining yet still dominant mainstream news magazine Der Spiegel has dedicated a long title story and a sensationalist cover to Berlin’s last open war in, as the Germans used to say back then, the East. So far, so expected. There is no doubt, after all, that this was a historic as well as horrific event.


Launching their surprise attack with millions of troops and the explicit intention to wage a war of extermination, those Germans of yore, sought to build a ‘lebensraum’ empire from hell, based on multiple deliberate genocides (including one of Soviet POWs), warfare with all legal or moral restraints systematically removed, and a supremacist ideology that would have designated anyone surviving among the conquered as a slave of inferior, if any, humanity.

Moreover, if those Germans, who attacked 85 years ago, had won in ‘the East’, their form of genocidal fascism – officially termed National Socialism – would have had a realistic chance to survive and even maintain domination in large parts of Eurasia (at least). For the preponderant majority of German forces were destroyed by the Soviet military. If that had not happened, we might all have ended up living in a very different, even worse world now.

The stakes were as high as they could possibly be not just for Europe but humanity as a whole. That is why the defeat of Germany’s Operation Barbarossa belongs to the most important facts of global history. The Germans were not stopped by a combination of vile weather, muddy roads, and silly mistakes of their own, as some may still want to believe in blissful ignorance and with more than a hint of racist arrogance. What killed the fascist German bid for world power was the Soviet Union, the leadership of its generals, who after initial setbacks, rapidly learned to out-think and out-plan the Germans, the supreme valor of its soldiers, and the unimaginable grit as well as organization of its home front.

But the price was steep. Especially as Berlin had made a decision to fight a war of extermination, Soviet losses were terrible. 27 million killed (soldiers and civilians) and a corresponding storm of massive economic devastation, social dislocation, and mass trauma, physical and psychological.

This – in a nutshell – is the historical backdrop to Spiegel’s current title story, its cover, and the ruckus both have triggered. In essence, a monotonous chorus of critics – things are generally done in intellectually dull lockstep again in Germany – have charged Spiegel with obscuring the suffering of those in the Soviet Union who were not ethnically Russian, such as, for instance, Belarusians or, of course, Ukrainians. By splashing ‘Our War against Russia’ – and not ‘the Soviet Union’ – on its cover (background: Nazi soldiers), these critics argue, Spiegel has in effect privileged Russia and Russians. The question some of them ask is if Spiegel has used this cover title out of ignorance or, probably even worse, to provoke precisely the pearl-clutching and hyperventilating it is receiving now. Scandal sells.

Like many rapidly shared herd opinions, the above is a remarkably superficial and misleading take. For starters, the cover title and that of the actual article inside the magazine are not identical. The latter reads ‘The German War of Extermination’. And as you may suspect, the article is commendably clear about at least some of the enormous crimes Germany committed, including, for instance, the mass use of slave labor and the de facto genocidal (a word Spiegel, however, fails to use) blockade of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg again). The fact that many victims were not ethnically Russian is mentioned, too.

Even if the cover title is imperfect, clearly, the substance of the article doesn’t correspond to that flaw, a fact which the critics of Spiegel mention conspicuously little, presumably because it would interfere with enjoying their somewhat self-important consternation.

Read more …

“Nearly 60% of Poles now oppose Kiev joining the bloc, compared to 42% a year ago, IBRiS surveys show..”

• Polish Opposition To EU Membership For Ukraine Surges (RT)

Nearly six in ten Poles now oppose Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, up from four in ten a year ago, according to two IBRiS opinion polls cited by Polish media. The latest survey, conducted for Radio ZET, found that 59.7% of respondents oppose Ukrainian membership. Last year, an IBRiS poll for Defence24 and the Stand With Ukraine initiative put that figure at 42%. The comparison suggests that public opinion has hardened. While support for Ukraine’s EU membership has remained broadly stable at around 35%, the share of undecided respondents has fallen from roughly one-quarter to just 5%, with most appearing to have shifted into the opposition camp.


Poland has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest political and military backers since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, supplying weapons, hosting millions of refugees, and consistently supporting Kiev’s integration into the EU and NATO. Despite Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s continued backing for Ukraine’s EU bid, the issue has become increasingly contentious in Poland, fueled by disputes over agriculture and historical grievances. Relations have further deteriorated since last month over the ‘Heroes of the UPA’ controversy, with Warsaw accusing Kiev of glorifying a nationalist movement implicated in wartime massacres of Poles.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki said that for “the vast majority of Polish society,” the UPA remains synonymous with atrocities committed against Poles during World War II. Poland officially recognizes the Volhynia massacres carried out by the UPA and affiliated Ukrainian formations as genocide, and several senior Polish politicians have argued that Kiev cannot expect Warsaw’s support for EU membership until the dispute is resolved.

Meanwhile, Polish farmers have continued to protest, arguing that Ukraine’s preferential access to the EU market has created unfair competition. They warn that Ukraine’s eventual accession could further erode their market share and reduce Poland’s share of EU agricultural subsidies. In February, Deputy Parliament Speaker Piotr Zgorzelski warned that fast-tracking Ukraine into the bloc would “spell the death of Polish agriculture.”

Read more …

A society that doesn’t protect its women is immoral. And short-lived,.

“.. and the Governments also Cover up the Rapes so Not to Threaten the Multicultural Policy,,”

• Scandinavian Rapes Rival Britain’s (Paul Craig Roberts)

In recent days I have reported on the Lowe Report in Britain of the British anti-white, pro-immigrant-invader governments of the last 30 years covering up the rapes of 250,000 ethnic British girls by black immigrant- invaders. Parents who complained were arrested and imprisoned for white racist hate crimes against black people. There are more ethinc British in prison for hate crimes against immigrant-invaders than there are immigrant-invaders in prison for gang-raping British children.


But immigrant-invader gang rapes are not limited to Britain. The rapes are a way the invaders demonstrate their dominance over the pucillanimous white populations. As the white populations have accepted their disgrace and humiliation, the immigrant-invaders have no fear of them and now execute white people in public.Hanne Herland who runs the only reliable news service in Europe, again reports on the rampart rape of Scandinavian women by black immigrant-invaders:

“In Norway, one of the few reports that published the ethnicities of criminals showed that 100% of assault rapes were done by non-Western immigrants. Immigrants from Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and Turkey have much higher crime rates than the general population, with the worst being from Africa. In Sweden, a recent study showed 96% of rapes are committed by immigrants. In both cases, almost exclusively native, white women were raped.” In Denmark, non-Western immigrants are over seven times more likely to commit rape than native Danes.

But, of course, very few of the rapists are convicted or even charged. Sweden has sixty “no-go zones” ruled by immigrant gangs where the police are not allowed; the city of Malmø has over 50% non-Western immigrants with a higher crime rate index than Baghdad. Sweden has the highest number of bombings for a country not at war.

“According to a recent study, 96% of assault rapes in Sweden are committed by foreign-born immigrants, and ethnic Swedish women are the ones raped. A 2018 investigation found that 40 out of 43 men convicted of gang rape were either immigrants or born to immigrant parents. Sweden has had the highest number of registered rape offenses in Europe by a considerable extent.

“In 1977, Sweden had 689 rapes reported. In 2015, 18,100 sexual offenses were reported, again almost solely perpetrated against ethnic Swedes. Still, Swedish politicians do not stop it, and mainstream media is silent out of fear of being labelled racist.” [In my opinion it is the government that is silent because its agenda is multiculturalism and the government and media do not want to discredit a multicultural tower of babel, their ideal.]

“Norway’s numbers indicate that remarkably few individuals are convicted of rape. Only one in 10 reports of sexual violence are filed, and about 80 percent of those are simply dropped. In Sweden, out of 4,895 reported rape cases [ reported cases are a small percentage of rapes] in 2017, only 190 led to convictions. In Norway, only one in 10 produces a conviction. Statistics also show that one in five Norwegian girls under 15 years of age is exposed to sexual violence.” Sweden does not publish official crime data linked to ethnicity or immigration status.

In other words the anti-white Scananavian governments protect their open borders policy by not providing information that shows the entirety of crime in the countries is the result of the open borders policies of the anti-white governments.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2070228991412232355?s=20

 

 

Germany, UK banned this movie https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2070334277867499678?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 26 2026

Jun 262026
 
 June 26, 2026  Posted by at 9:09 am Finance Tagged with: , , ,  40 Responses »


VIncent van Gogh Quay with Men Unloading Sand Barges 1888


• It’s Official: The Democrat Party Is a Socialist Skinsuit (Stephen Green)
• The Democratic Socialists are Ascendant in New York (JTN)
• The Republican Party’s Dissidents Show Themselves the Door (Ben Shapiro)
• Mark Rutte Gives “Remain in NATO” Pitch to President Trump in White House (CTH)
• Anthropic Accuses Alibaba Of Illicitly Extracting Ai Capabilities (BBC)
• US National Security Agency (NSA) Loses Access To Key AI Tool (RT)
• Brexit at 10: The Divorce Britain Now Regrets (Galina Dudina)
• Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s EO Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote (AmG)
• A River in Egypt (Molly Schwartz)
• Suffer the Little Children, France Insists (Stephen Green)
• Kremlin To Contact Apple Before Responding To Removal of Apps (TASS)
• Apple Price Shock: Macs And iPads Jump $200 Or More, Memory Crisis Worsens (ZH)
• Fauci, The CIA, And The Unanswered Questions of COVID (RealClearWire)

 


 

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2069816129179058463?s=20 https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2069592469176476075?s=20

 


 


What, no war accounts to open with?

I think what used to be moderate Democrat voters, the party’s base, have vanished.

If there were a third option, they would dissolve.

To survive, they move left more and more.

• It’s Official: The Democrat Party Is a Socialist Skinsuit (Stephen Green)

Just about the last thing you should expect from some lefty political insider is a forthright admission of what they’re actually up to, but that’s exactly what happened when Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) New York City cochair Gustavo Gordillo spoke with NY1’s Spectrum News earlier this week. It seems like only yesterday [It was only yesterday, Steve —Editor] that PJ Media’s own Matt Margolis pronounced the Democrat Party “dead” after three far-left candidates “endorsed by socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani swept their targeted congressional primaries” against their traditional Democrat opponents.


Gordillo is here to tell you that not only is the Democrat Party dead, but he and his DSA comrades wear its skinsuit. “We’re using the Democratic Party as a ballot-access vehicle, not because we share its goals,” Gordillo boldly stated. “We build our own organization, get elected under the Democratic label, caucus with Democrats when it’s useful, and push our own agenda from the inside.” Here’s the kicker — the line that should have House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries losing sleep at night and/or wetting himself: “We see the Democratic establishment as an obstacle, not a home.” Of course, I have the clip for you, on the off chance you feel masochistic enough to watch the whole thing.

“It’s more feasible to think about a statewide democratic socialist race, maybe then a democratic socialist in [14-term Rep. Gregory] Meeks’ seat, which I think is maybe a different kind of challenge,” Gordillo also told Spectrum News, signaling that DSA is far from finished with toppling the New York Democratic establishment. “Some are hoping Rep. Hakeem Jeffries is next,” Spectrum reported, and “one leader wouldn’t rule it out.” “Our congressional districts are going to look very different in 2028 if the measure to redraw the lines ends up being successful,” Gordillo added, hinting that Jeffries is on the menu. “So, I don’t think we can make any concrete predictions until that is further along.”

Sleep tight, Hakeem — but you aren’t the only Democrat establishment figure the DSA has its long knives out for. According to a New York Post report out on Thursday, Gordillo “warned Gov. Kathy Hochul that the emboldened far-left group will take aim at her over her reluctance to ‘tax the rich.'” Gordillo added, “I think we have to show New York what it means to have three Democratic socialists in the congressional delegation.” What it means is, should the Dems take hold of the House in November, come January, we’ll have fricken socialists helping pen legislation that could affect the entire country.

The NYT described Mamdani as “an undeniable power broker” in New York City politics, but he’s just getting started — and his DSA lieutenant Gustavo Gordillo made it clear that their ambitions extend far beyond the city. And they’ll happily wear the DNC as a skinsuit to achieve them.

Read more …

Remember, this is JFK’s party. But not his voters.

Who are the Dems going to appeal to now?

In federal elections, you can’t go anywhere with Mamdani. Try him in flyover country.

• The Democratic Socialists are Ascendant in New York (JTN)

In a shock to the Democratic Party establishment, several socialist candidates in the mold of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani ousted incumbents and cemented their influence in the nation’s largest city, long considered the financial capital of the world. The candidates centered their campaigns on radical changes that have become the calling card of a new brand of socialist Democrats. Their platform includes abolishing ICE, ending deportations, opposing the state of Israel, implementing Medicare for all, and creating federal job guarantees.


Mamdani’s endorsements put the mayor on a collision course with establishment Democratic leadership, and he came out victorious. The socialist victories were specifically a defeat for Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who backed the old-school incumbents and doubted Mamdani’s potential for long-term influence over the party. The results have prompted more moderate Democrats to raise the alarm about the growing strength and influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) within their own ranks.

“People who do not support the DSA wring their hands at cocktail parties, while the DSA is organizing,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told Axios. “It was a tough night,” Gregory Meeks, another Democrat from New York, told the outlet. New York Attorney General Letitia James said Mamdani’s endorsements threaten to “blow up” the Democratic Party.

NY AG Letitia James: “Disappointed” in Mandami
“Some of the candidates that he has supported are individuals who do not understand the politics of New York City, the cultural differences from district to district, who have not been part of the history and the struggle of some of these districts, and are relatively new to the body politic,” James told CNN. “All of us are a little frustrated with the Democratic Party. But you don’t blow it up. That’s what MAGA has done,” she added. Mamdani’s decision to endorse candidates challenging establishment-backed figures and bucking party leadership is part of an attempt to “radically” reorient the Democratic Party towards his vision, those close to the mayor have said.

“He’s seeing that opportunity – that we can radically change the Democratic Party,” said Faiz Shakir, an advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders and described as a friend of Mamdani’s. “Like Bernie, he’s not saying I’m doing this out of spite against you, dear leadership. He’s saying, I am supporting these candidates who have a better vision, and I am prepared to lose if it has to be the case.”

Platforms and policies defined
In perhaps one of the most shocking races of the night, DSA-endorsed Darializa Avila Chevalier knocked off five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat, who helmed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Espaillat has represented the Upper Manhattan district for nearly a decade and was backed by Jeffries. Chevalier, on the other hand, has been a community organizer who graduated from Columbia in 2016. Before running for office, she worked with the Neighborhood Defender Services of Harlem, a public defenders office.

Chevalier’s worldview was heavily influenced by an internship with Tomorrow’s Youth Organization, teaching English to Palestinian children in Nablus, West Bank. The 2014 Israel-Gaza war, which lasted about 50 days, started just after she returned to the United States. “That was a really formative period for me, because I was essentially living in the heart of the occupation and seeing the way that Palestinians had to navigate all these systems, the impact that it had on children as young as the ones that I was working with,” Avila Chevalier told City & State New York. “I came back, and I couldn’t unsee all those things. And I started seeing them in our own systems, right? Our systems of policing, of deportation, of the controlling of our movement.”

Her identity as a pro-Palestine, and anti-Israel, activist was at the center of her long-shot campaign. Before launching her bid for Congress, Chevalier had spent years organizing and participating in protests against the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. The war was sparked when Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist group that controlled the Gaza Strip, conducted a deadly attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

The following day, Chevalier was out on the streets of New York, participating in a protest organized by leftist groups. Rallygoers held signs reading “Resistance is Justified when People are Occupied” and faced criticism for appearing to support the attacks that left more than one thousand Israelis dead. Some of the rally organizers were later sued for allegedly acting as “collaborators and propagandists” for Hamas in the United States.

Claims to be a “human rights advocate” for Palestinians
During the campaign, Chevalier defended attending the rally, suggesting Israel’s response to the Hamas attack had the potential to become “a really outsized reaction.” “I can only say I have been advocating for the human rights of Palestinians for my adult life. And as someone who has seen a pattern, whenever anything happens on the ground (in Israel), there’s always a really outsized reaction that costs thousands of people their lives,” Avila Chevalier told City & State earlier this month.

Chevalier’s activism ultimately encouraged her to convert to Islam because of the “grace and love and passion” that her Muslim friends had for “social justice,” she said in a speech at a New York Mosque. In addition to pro-Palestine activism, Chevalier has taken an extreme position on immigration law and deportations. Like many of her DSA colleagues, Chevalier calls for ICE to be abolished, but has gone even further to suggest that all deportations are wrong. “I still believe that all deportations are wrong,” Chevalier said in an interview with Vox earlier this month. When asked if that would include those who had committed criminal offenses in the United States after entering illegally, she doubled down.

Chevalier has also faced scrutiny for a series of deleted posts to social media expressing support for abolishing police, prisons and borders, seizing private property, and nationalizing industries. “A world without borders—just like a world without prisons or police—is possible, necessary, and the only moral way forward,” Chevalier posted to Twitter in September 2021. During that same month, she also posted: “Yes, literally, abolish the border” and “all deportation is wrong.” In a handful of posts, Chevalier appeared to express support for key tenets of Marxism and abolishing the police.

“Seize the means of production,” she wrote in one post. “No. It means ending policing full stop. Period. No more police at all ever,” she wrote in another. Chevalier tried to distance herself from her old tweets during the campaign. “I have grown considerably in the years since these tweets, and I am focused on our community and our community’s future,” Chevalier told CNN when the outlet asked about the posts.

Read more …

A bit of motion there too. But Republicans have it easy compared to Democrats.

• The Republican Party’s Dissidents Show Themselves the Door (Ben Shapiro)

Tucker Carlson says he can no longer support the Republican Party. In that regard, he finds himself in familiar company. A growing faction on the populist right — including figures such as Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Nick Fuentes — has increasingly positioned itself in opposition to core Republican foreign policy principles. Rather than seeking to persuade the party, many now appear ready to abandon it altogether. That may not be a crisis for Republicans. It may simply be a clarification. Political movements require ideological boundaries. Parties are more than coalitions of convenience; they are associations built around shared principles and priorities.


When those principles cease to align, separation is often healthier than endless internal conflict. Vice President JD Vance recently made that case during an appearance on Megyn Kelly’s show. Defending the administration’s approach to Iran, Vance argued that Republicans who disagree with specific policies should nevertheless recognize the alternative: empowering Democrats. Whether one agrees with his defense of the administration or not, the broader point is difficult to dispute. Political parties function by advancing a common agenda, not by endlessly renegotiating their foundational commitments.

Yet a segment of the so-called “horseshoe Right” appears interested in something else entirely. Rather than influencing the Republican Party from within, its leaders increasingly seem determined to pressure the party into abandoning longstanding principles in favor of a worldview markedly more sympathetic to adversarial regimes abroad. Carlson’s latest comments are a case in point. Speaking on the Can’t Be Censored podcast, Carlson announced that he no longer supports the Republican Party because, in his view, it has become immoral. He argued that Republicans have placed the interests of foreign countries above those of Americans and therefore no longer deserve his support.

“I voted Republican my entire life,” Carlson said. “I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years of the Republican Party. … But there’s no defending this because it’s immoral.” That claim raises questions of its own. Carlson was registered as a Democrat from 2006 to 2020, explaining at various times that he did so in order to participate in Democratic primaries. Regardless, the larger issue is not his voter registration history but his definition of Republican principles. Carlson has become one of the most prominent voices arguing against support for Ukraine while expressing remarkable sympathy for Russia’s perspective in the conflict.

He has repeatedly criticized efforts to counter Iranian influence in the Middle East and has frequently attacked traditional Republican arguments centered on deterrence and strength.At some point, disagreement becomes philosophical divergence. If a political movement believes in peace through strength, maintaining American alliances and confronting hostile regimes, then those who reject those principles are under no obligation to remain within that movement. Nor is the movement obligated to redefine itself around their objections.Greene recently echoed Carlson’s frustration, declaring that she would no longer support what she called an “America Last Republican Party.”

Similar sentiments have emerged from other prominent commentators who argue that the GOP has betrayed its voters by refusing to embrace a more isolationist foreign policy. But dissatisfaction alone does not confer ownership. Being unhappy with a party’s direction does not mean the party must reorganize itself around every dissatisfied faction. Kelly, to her credit, recently suggested that disagreement with Republican leadership is not itself grounds for abandoning the party. That observation highlights a broader truth: Political coalitions inevitably contain disagreements. The question is whether those disagreements exist within a shared framework of principles or whether they reflect fundamentally different visions of America’s role in the world.

The current divide increasingly appears to be the latter. The Republican Party is free to debate tactics, priorities and individual policies. What it cannot do is function without a coherent identity. If peace through strength, support for American interests abroad, and opposition to hostile foreign powers remain central to that identity, then those who reject those principles may decide they no longer belong in the coalition. If so, there is nothing wrong with leaving. What would be a mistake is allowing those departures to become the blueprint for a new Republican Party. Sometimes political movements benefit not from expansion but from clarity. And sometimes the clearest statement is made by those who choose to walk away.

Read more …

The motions. Going thru,

• Mark Rutte Gives “Remain in NATO” Pitch to President Trump in White House (CTH)

Against the backdrop of President Trump, Secretary Rubio and Secretary Hegseth pointedly telling NATO of the U.S. intention to draw-down U.S. military operations from Europe, NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte flies to Washington DC to make the pro-NATO sales pitch directly to President Trump.In one of the most transparent appearances in oval office history, a passionate, self-interested and professionally demure Mark Rutte pours on the praise for President Trump and puts on a massive sales pitch.


You can tell from President Trump’s demeanor, tone and general ambivalence, he too can see how over the top the praise and back-slapping is. Secretary Rutte was intensely and diplomatically focused on not allowing any accurate criticism or statement of disappointment from President Trump be left unchallenged to frame the tone and context of the meeting by the media. This is quite a desperate spectacle to witness when you understand the stakes for Europe which were carried by Rutte.

CTH readers can see through the professionally demure motivations of the NATO secretary, and it was obvious from President Trump’s response that Rutte was transparently playing to the U.S. audience and DC stakeholders. That said, you’ve got to give Rutte credit for tap-dancing that fine line. It was a great sales pitch, and President Trump was very courteous and respectful of the showmanship, but I doubt President Trump was moved much. The G7 assembly in Turkey will be very interesting.For the G7 (+13) in France, Zelenskyy went all-in with the Ukraine false flag and attack on Moscow. It will be interesting to watch what the “coalition of the willing” have planned for the next assembly.

Read more …

“..29 million exchanges with Claude using thousands of fraudulent accounts..” Couldn’t Anthropic have seen this coming? You know, instead of whining to Pocahontas?

• Anthropic Accuses Alibaba Of Illicitly Extracting Ai Capabilities (BBC)

US artificial intelligence (AI) giant Anthropic has accused Chinese e-commerce and technology firm Alibaba of “brazenly” and “illicitly” extracting its Claude AI model’s capabilities. In a letter sent to two members of the US Congress, the San Francisco-based company said operators linked to Alibaba carried out almost 29 million exchanges with Claude using thousands of fraudulent accounts in what it called the largest extraction campaign of its kind. Anthropic urged Congress to penalise the companies behind attacks like this and to ramp up measures to prevent US tech from being stolen.


[..] Anthropic’s letter, dated 10 June and addressed to US Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren, accused New York Stock Exchange-listed Alibaba of carrying out “the largest campaign to illicitly extract Claude’s capabilities”. According to Anthropic, the campaign was carried out through what are known as “distillation attacks”, which extracted answers from a stronger AI model to train a weaker one. Alibaba-linked operators targeted Claude’s most valuable capabilities, including its ability to tackle longer and more complex tasks and its approach to decision-making, Anthropic said.

These type of attacks are carried out on an “industrial scale” to enable Chinese companies to harvest and repackage US AI capabilities as their own, the company said. The letter also cited other alleged attacks, which Anthropic said posed a threat to the US military. “Distillation attacks turn hundreds of billions of dollars in American investment and [research and development] into a massive subsidy for our geopolitical competitors,” said Anthropic. It cited the US Department of Defense’s claims that Alibaba and several major firms like car maker BYD and tech company Baidu are tied to the Chinese military.

The companies have denied any such allegations, while Alibaba this week sued the US government in a bid to get its name removed from the Pentagon blacklist. US developers have previously accused Chinese competitors of using distillation attacks to train their models to rival American AI technology at a fraction of the cost. OpenAI has also previously accused Chinese groups of employing the same practice. Anthropic is a leading AI developer and, alongside ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, is gearing up for a blockbuster stock market debut that could make it one of the most vaulable companies in the world. But some of Anthropic’s more advanced models, such as Mythos, have raised cybersecurity concerns over their ability to target weaknesses in computer systems.

Read more …

“The NSA has reportedly lost access to Anthropic’s advanced Mythos model amid a dispute between the tech company and Washington..”

Maybe the NSA can pretend they’re Alibaba.

• US National Security Agency (NSA) Loses Access To Key AI Tool (RT)

The US National Security Agency (NSA) has lost access to Anthropic’s advanced Mythos 5 AI model while using it to find software weaknesses, the New York Times has reported. The development comes amid Washington’s months-long dispute with the Silicon Valley firm. The cutoff came after the Trump administration imposed export restrictions on Anthropic earlier this month, citing national security concerns, according to the NYT. The loss “deprived” the intelligence agency of a “tool that has impressed and alarmed its analysts with how good it is at finding software weaknesses,” the outlet added.


During the tests, the model identified vulnerabilities in highly secure government networks “within hours,” the AP reported on Wednesday, citing an anonymous US official. Anthropic’s AI technology has been increasingly deployed on classified government networks and integrated into US national-security work, with its models used for intelligence analysis, operational planning, and cyber operations.

However, in February, the Department of War designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk” after the company refused to remove restrictions on some of its AI systems’ military applications. The firm said it opposed mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. US President Donald Trump subsequently ordered federal agencies to phase out Anthropic technology within a six-month window.

Anthropic sued the government, arguing that the measures were unlawful retaliation for its refusal to relax safeguards on AI’s military uses. Despite the phase-out order and ongoing legal battle, multiple media reports later claimed that parts of the US government continue to use Anthropic systems. The developments come amid warnings from researchers, technology leaders, and security officials that AI systems are being integrated into military and intelligence operations faster than governments and institutions can adapt to their increasing capabilities.

Experts have cautioned that the same tools that are used to strengthen cyber defenses could also automate attacks and lower barriers for malicious actors. On Monday, cybersecurity experts from the Five Eyes intelligence alliance – the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand – warned that rapidly advancing AI models could soon enable hackers to disrupt governments, businesses, and critical infrastructure on a global scale.

Read more …

Brexit at Tiffany’s?!

“The UK wants back into the EU, but not on the EU’s terms”.

Galina Dudina, is a columnist at Kommersant daily newspaper in Moscow..

• Brexit at 10: The Divorce Britain Now Regrets (Galina Dudina)

Ten years ago, I was on a business trip in Brussels on the day of the Brexit referendum. Voting was already underway across the Channel, but in the European Quarter, the mood was almost serene. Journalists kept asking EU officials about Brexit, and the officials waved the questions away with jokes, as though the whole thing was a theatrical inconvenience rather than a potential political earthquake. In private conversations, I asked people the same question: if you had to place a bet, what would you choose? Everyone said ‘Remain’. In Britain itself, almost 13 million voters didn’t turn out at all, apparently unable to imagine the scale of what was coming.


We were all naive. Trump hadn’t yet been elected in the United States, the Covid disaster hadn’t yet rolled across the world, and the year 2022 hadn’t arrived yet. On the morning of June 24, 2016, the news that 51.9% of British voters had chosen to leave the European Union was read not only online, but on the faces of people in Brussels. Outside cafés and around the offices where EU officials gathered for lunch, people spoke into their phones in a state of disbelief. Today, around 57% of Britons say Brexit was a mistake, and despite the reverence traditionally attached in Britain to the “will of the people,” politicians are increasingly prepared to discuss whether the decision should one day be revisited.

Philip Rycroft, the senior civil servant who oversaw preparations for Brexit inside the British state, recently argued that “Brexit isn’t over” and “will never be over.” In his view, the British political class should now have an honest discussion not only about closer relations with Brussels, but also about a possible return to the Union. At first glance, this sounds reasonable because, ten years on, Brexit hasn’t produced the promised economic boom. Sterling hasn’t soared, and the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in the long term, the British economy will be around 4% smaller than it would have been inside the EU. Some economists put the loss in GDP per capita at 6–8%.

Nor has Britain escaped dependence on the rest of Europe. The EU remains its largest trading partner, accounting for around 41% of British exports and almost half of imports, while for British companies, Brexit has brought more paperwork, friction, and uncertainty. And yet the new talk of reunion isn’t quite the sober strategic rethink it pretends to be. It also belongs to a wider nostalgia that swept social media at the start of this year, when users in many countries began posting old photographs and memories under the slogan “bring back my 2016.”

Those now dreaming of a return to 2016, and to the EU, should remember what Britain’s membership actually looked like. Since joining the European Economic Community in 1973, Britain spent decades carving out a special status for itself, and while it was in the club, it was never quite like the others. It kept the pound, stayed outside Schengen, secured a rebate on its budget contributions, and negotiated opt-outs in sensitive areas.

There is little reason to think Brussels would now offer London the same package again. A returning Britain would have to accept a far less comfortable relationship, with economic dependence on the continent, migration pressures, tighter alignment with EU rules, and rising defense obligations. This is where public opinion becomes more complicated because, while many Britons may favor closer ties, or even rejoining in theory, only 36% support returning without the old exemptions. In other words, they want the lost stability of EU membership, but not necessarily the obligations that would now come with it.

Britain might also find that its place in the European queue has changed, and a new application would risk landing behind Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, and Moldova. The former imperial power that once negotiated rebates and exceptions could return as just another applicant. Both Brexit and the current regret over Brexit are therefore more emotional than rational. It’s no accident that the most common metaphor for it is divorce, and many people know from experience that missing a former partner does not always mean reconciliation is possible, or wise.

Read more …

It’s an absurd story. Nobody in the whole world can figure out why.

• Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s EO Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote (AmG)

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked key portions of President Donald Trump’s executive order overhauling federal election procedures, ruling that the president exceeded his constitutional authority by attempting to impose new voting requirements without congressional approval. U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, concluded that the Constitution gives primary authority over elections to the states and Congress, not the executive branch.


The ruling makes permanent a preliminary injunction Casper issued last year in a lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general from 19 states. “While the Constitution vests the President with ‘executive Power’ and commands him to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ it does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote. “As a result, the President ‘plays no direct role in the process of appointing electors,’ nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do,” she added.

Trump’s executive order sought to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, prohibit states from counting mail ballots received after Election Day even if postmarked on time, and withhold certain federal funds from states that declined to comply. Casper ruled that the administration lacked the authority to impose those changes through executive action. In her 59-page opinion, the judge also rejected the administration’s justification for the order, writing that the Justice Department failed to establish the widespread election problems it cited in defending the policy.

“There is no evidence in this record of widespread ‘illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error’ within American elections, which the Executive Order purports to safeguard against,” Casper wrote. The judge also concluded that the order would have disenfranchised thousands of voters.The decision is another legal setback for the administration’s efforts to repair federal election procedures. Courts have repeatedly blocked or limited several election-related initiatives advanced during Trump’s second term.

Additional lawsuits are challenging a separate executive order aimed at creating a nationwide voter database and tightening mail voting requirements. Earlier this week, another federal judge blocked the administration’s attempt to use an immigration database to verify voter rolls, while courts have also rejected Justice Department efforts to obtain state voter registration records. Despite the court rulings, Trump has continued urging Congress to enact proof-of-citizenship requirements through legislation.

The Republican-backed SAVE America Act passed the House but remains stalled in the Senate. Trump renewed that effort Wednesday, saying he would withhold his signature from a bipartisan housing bill until Congress approves voter citizenship verification requirements.

Read more …

“Bessent noted that a born-again Venezuela is shifting back towards USD invoicing, and that post-deal Iran is likely to do so as well.”

• A River in Egypt (Molly Schwartz)

Scott Bessent took to CNBC’s Squawk Box yesterday to opine on the situation with Iran. Bessent echoed Trump’s comments that any released Iranian assets are to remain under US Treasury oversight and are restricted to use for food and medicine. However, money is fungible, and any released cash that is used to help civilians may mean more cash from other places that can be used to support the IRGC’s interests


Bessent’s comments also called attention to another philosophical outlook on the war and the Administration’s initially stated— though seemingly not truly intended—goal of regime change. This is where the waters gets murky, and where we can climb into our Felucca and begin our journey along a river in Egypt, drifting, perhaps, into a bit of strategic “denial” about what regime change actually means. If, hypothetically of course, Operation Epic Fury succeeded in asserting regime change in Iran, where does the US go from here? If the new Ayatollah says he is willing to table plans of further enriching uranium and wants to align itself with US interests, should the US just keep firing missiles? Do you keep Iranian assets under lock and key, even if the regime has shown you that it has changed?

Bessent said himself, “we didn’t have a regime change, but we have changed the regime.” If that is the genuine perspective of the Trump Administration, then the deal may not be as bad for the US as many perceive it to be. As our Global Strategist, Michael Every, has noted on multiple occasions, show of strength means everything in the arena of Middle Eastern geopolitics. There is a possibility that the current hardliners in the IRGC aren’t actually so hardline anymore, but are only presenting as such. Note that this is not a new base case for our outlook by any means (you can read more about our Hormuz outlook here), but food for thought.

If the regime truly has changed, this also could have big implications for USD dominance. Bessent noted that a born-again Venezuela is shifting back towards USD invoicing, and that post-deal Iran is likely to do so as well.

Brent crude oil fell below $75/bbl for the first time since the war in Iran began, sending US Treasury markets into a tailspin. US 2-year yields dropped almost 6bp to 4.21, while the 10-year sunk almost 10bp—the largest one-day downward move since October 2025. With “peace in the Middle East,” the case for hikes is losing water by the day, with the market now pricing in 27bp worth of hikes by October, and only 40bp worth of hikes at the peak—a significant downgrade from Monday, when two full hikes had been priced in by the April 2027 FOMC decision.

Such a dramatic move in rates would normally suggest a weaker dollar, but USD was actually the best-performing G10 currency on a one-day view and the best month-to-date. The DXY index continued its climb from last week’s FOMC meeting to 101.6—the highest level since May 2025. Meanwhile, EUR/USD broke below crucial support at 1.14, fueling additional EUR selling, with the pair trading at 1.1356 at the time of writing. While the following appears to be more of an instance of correlation rather than causation, it is also important to note that yesterday’s move coincided with comments from Bessent—perhaps another slow turn of the Felucca—that USD can remain strong even when interest rates are being cut.

While USD is soaring, JPY is plummeting. USD/JPY spent the day yesterday approaching the July 3, 2024 high of 162, with the 14D RSI at 71.83 suggesting that USD/JPY is overbought. According to Bloomberg, Bessent and Japanese Finance Minister Katayama spoke over the phone, with Katayama telling reporters that “she and Bessent agreed to take ‘bold’ steps on currencies if needed,” and said the nations are increasingly “aligned” on foreign-exchange policy.

The Bank of Canada released its Summary of Deliberations from the June 10 decision, written on papyrus. Recent Canadian economic data suggest that the Canadian economy has slipped into a technical recession, with two consecutive quarters of negative quarterly growth. The Governing Council piled into a felucca of their own, racing up de Nile, justifying that higher-frequency data suggest a “resumption of growth in the second quarter,” and that while the Canadian economy is weak, it is “not clearly in a recession.”

Read more …

“It’s so hot that the schoolchildren are passing out in class and nobody is allowed to do anything about it.”

• Suffer the Little Children, France Insists (Stephen Green)

If Johnny Carson were still around and hosting The Tonight Show, he might launch a bit during tonight’s monologue with “Boy, it’s really hot out there in Nîmes today…” and then the audience would burst in, sounding almost rehearsed and shouting, “HOW HOT IS IT?” “It’s so hot that the schoolchildren are passing out in class and nobody is allowed to do anything about it.” Wait, that isn’t funny. But it is the situation in Nîmes, a city of about 148,000 in a lovely part of the south of France. Actually, I’ve been in the south of France, and all the parts are lovely (except Marseille, of course), but I digress.


The region is suffering a record-breaking, early-summer heat wave with temperatures soaring as high as 40–44°C, the way the French reckon it, or 104–111°F in actual degrees. This is when Americans would set the thermostat to 68° (actual degrees) or maybe go see a movie at a theater where they keep it that temp all the time.mBut at the École Primaire La Planette school in Nîmes, they have no air conditioning — naturellement — and according to Miss Jo on X and other sources, a child there “recently fainted because of the heat,” even while “classes were being taught in corridors to get out of the heat.”

Parents of the students there did what parents in America would almost certainly do in a similar situation, and they raised money to buy five portable air conditioning units for the school. The community got so involved that the parents needed just three days to raise the required €2,000. So far, so good. But Mayor Vincent Bouget is an actual member of the Parti communiste français (PCF), and if there’s one thing Communists can’t stand, it’s the community doing stuff. Bouget ordered the school to remove the A/C because “it sets a precedent,” and “in some neighborhoods, parents don’t have the means to act.”

I mean, I guess those parents could hold a fundraiser like the other parents did. The community seemed pretty excited to jump in and help. But no. What was Winston Churchill just saying about socialism? Ah, yes — here’s the quote: “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” That line actually dates back to a speech Churchill gave in Scotland in 1948. But it’s so timeless that it still has that fresh quote smell. Unlike the schools in Nîmes, which likely smell like sweat and desperation. Honestly, I’d enjoy nothing more than to write about something, anything other than how vicious Europe is to its own people, but it just won’t stop being so vicious to its own people.

If I were a particularly coldhearted eugenicist, this is where I’d argue that it’s one thing to force young children to put up with potentially deadly heat, but it just makes good sense to deny A/C to old people who are nothing but burdens to the State. Which is exactly what happens even during normal summers, when tens of thousands of Europeans — typically older — die unnecessarily due to the heat. But that would be gross. And also wrong. This is America, and we have A/C for pretty much everybody who needs it. The way God and Willis Carrier intended.

Read more …

~Weird.

• Kremlin To Contact Apple Before Responding To Removal of Apps (TASS)

Relevant Russian agencies will contact Apple before deciding how to respond to the removal of Russian apps, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. “Naturally, before drawing any conclusions, it is necessary to establish contact with this service, and our relevant agency will do so. Of course, clarifications will be required from the corporation,” he said when asked a respective question. VK announced earlier that Apple had removed its apps from the store without explanation. The company clarified that apps already installed would continue to function on Apple devices, though users would not receive push notifications. VK also emphasized that it had never been subject to sanctions, a fact confirmed by numerous legal opinions from international and US lawyers.
Read more …

I need a new MacBook. Mine is 8 years old. They just added $400+. Great. Volunteers?

• Apple Price Shock: Macs And iPads Jump $200 Or More, Memory Crisis Worsens (ZH)

Readers were warned as early as late January to front-run the coming memory shortage by purchasing their favorite electronics, whether PCs, laptops, TVs, smartphones, or anything else dependent on high-end memory chips, as unprecedented data-center demand was already beginning to emerge. Fast forward nearly five months, and just two weeks after Apple CEO Tim Cook warned that “price increases are unavoidable” for laptops and other devices, a Wall Street Journal report has confirmed that those hikes have now been passed along, potentially delivering sticker shock to customers.


Here’s what happened earlier: The Apple Online Store briefly went down, and when it came back online, prices for Mac computers jumped 15% to 20%, while iPad prices increased 15% to 25%. The company briefly took down its Apple Online Store early this morning as it typically does when announcing new products. When it came back online, the price tags for Mac computers rose roughly 15% to 20% and iPad prices rose 15% to 25%. Among the price increases, the base MacBook Air rose $200 to $1,299; the base MacBook Pro increased $300 to $1,999; the entry-level MacBook Neo increased $100 to $699. The iPad Air increased $150 to $749 and the iPad Pro increased $200 to $1,199. -WSJ

However, iPhone prices remained unchanged, but the company told the outlet in a statement that additional price hikes could be on the way. “We have now reached a point where we need to begin raising prices,” Apple said in the statement. “We have never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly.” An Apple spokesperson placed the blame on the “rapid expansion of AI data centers, which has created an extraordinary surge in demand for memory and storage,” and this is why component prices surged.

Earlier this month, Cook told WSJ that price increases had become “unavoidable” because of higher component costs, adding, “There’s less supply at a time when consumers want devices, and the memory guys are passing along huge price increases.”Apple has historically revealed price hikes with new launches of iPhones, iPads, and other devices, making this overnight price hike extraordinarily rare. The high-end chip market is dominated by US-based Micron and South Korea’s SK Hynix and Samsung, which have all seen massive demand for high-bandwidth memory from AI “hyperscalers” such as Google, Meta, and Amazon.

Apple’s price hikes come hours after Micron delivered blowout quarterly earnings, touting gross profit margins that topped 80%. Shares soared nearly 18% in premarket trading. Micron executives told investors that “tight conditions” will persist beyond 2027 and that only suggests further price hikes are coming not just for Apple but also for other major big tech firms that sell devices. Micron Chief Business Officer Sumit Sadana said in a WSJ interview last night that “a couple of the customers who were being very aggressive with pricing at that time were not constructive,” without naming Apple…

Sadana noted, “A lot of the industry investments got shut down in 2023 because of really poor pricing and really poor margins.” A recent Morgan Stanley note found that memory prices have climbed sixfold over the past year, with new manufacturing capacity likely to take years to build and ramp up. The iPhone price hike may be unavoidable: JPMorgan analysts estimate DRAM and NAND could jump from roughly 10% to 15% of an iPhone’s total component cost today to more than 45% by 2027. Memory price spikes are already showing up in the Producer Price Index for semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing.

… and at what point does President Trump start raging at memory prices, just as his administration has successfully sent oil prices crashing by entering a diplomatic phase with Tehran to secure a permanent peace deal?

Read more …

Every politician everywhere is involved. Forget figuring it out.

• Fauci, The CIA, And The Unanswered Questions of COVID (RealClearWire)

Did Anthony Fauci manipulate the intelligence community (IC) investigation of the origin of COVID as outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claims?Gabbard recently released previously unseen documents and communications during the COVID pandemic between the IC and the key member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, Dr. Anthony Fauci. She claims they show that Fauci and the IC coordinated the investigation of the origin of the COVID to suggest it was a natural occurrence rather than a laboratory leak. She further charges that the documents reveal Fauci’s direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments in an attempt to discourage the lab-leak hypothesis.


It is not clear that the released information shows this, and a careful reading suggests a more complicated scenario. But what the messages do show is that an undue emphasis on Fauci’s actions risks missing a more important point – the hidden connection between public health officials and the IC during the pandemic.

The two theories on where COVID originated are that the virus evolved naturally from bats to man via an intermediate animal host; or that the virus leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. The first was more widely accepted by scientists and most of the international press early in the pandemic, but the intermediate host has never been discovered so the theory remains speculative. The second theory, which has gained significant traction since initially being disparaged as conspiracy, is only circumstantial since no definitive proof exists. The answer as to how COVID originated remains unknown.

Where does Dr. Fauci, the government’s point man in the pandemic, fit in? He acknowledges the possibility of a lab leak, but initially came down firmly on the side of natural origin – aggressively so. He and his colleagues, notably his boss NIH director Francis Collins, attempted to publicly silence proponents of the lab leak theory. The rub is that Fauci was tangentially involved in “gain of function” viral manipulation research done in Wuhan and clearly misled Congress about this involvement.

Because gain-of-function research could have been responsible for the development of the virus in the Wuhan lab, this means Fauci has a conflict of interest on the COVID source: He could bear some responsibility for the entire affair if this was indeed a lab leak. So he has reason other than scientific inquiry to support the animal host theory. He is aware of that and has written in the past about the necessity and the attendant danger of doing gain-of-function research. He now strenuously denies it had anything to do with COVID.

Enter the IC and Gabbard’s document release.

There is uncertainty over whether Fauci frequented CIA offices early in the pandemic, something he was less than forthright about in his 2024 congressional testimony. It is unclear whether or how many times he was there, in part because a whistleblower claims the requirement to sign in was waived for Dr. Fauci. What is not in doubt are his contacts with the CIA after President Biden charged the IC with investigating the origin of COVID.

The CIA asked Fauci to provide recommendations for experts to consult in their investigation of the COVID origin; the extent of his influence on the agency’s investigation is unclear. At the time, some officials, aware of the potential conflict of interest, questioned in the documents whether relying on recommendations from someone deeply involved in coronavirus research could create the perception of improper influence regarding their findings. Nevertheless, the IC employed the experts Fauci recommended, who were never publicly identified. Their names have been redacted in communications and the information they provided has never been released.

The lack of transparency by the public health community and the CIA caused Republicans, led by Dr. Rand Paul, to suspect Fauci selected his CIA consultants based on their opposition to the lab-leak theory. Further, Paul proposed there was a self-justifying loop of information in which the medical experts put their thumbs on the scale of the IC report supporting natural origin. Public health officials (and some politicians who saw the lab-leak theory as a potential scandal) then turned around and used the “doctored” IC report to support the conclusions they provided to the public.

Neither of these accusations is supported or refuted by the released communications.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2069823459790618745?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 25 2026

Jun 252026
 
 June 25, 2026  Posted by at 10:17 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  22 Responses »


M.C. Escher Dream 1935


• Iran Calls MoU Deal A ‘US Defeat’ (ZH)
• Trump Threatened Netanyahu With ‘Divorce’, NYT Reporters Say In New Book (RT)
• The Democrat Party Is Dead (Matt Margolis)
• ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Now Officially Controls the Democrat Party (CTH)
• Mamdani-backed Candidates Sweep Democratic Primaries In NYC (Guardian)
• Can Anyone Govern Britain — Or America? (Daniel McCcarthy)
• Brent Falls To Pre-War Levels (ZH)
• ‘Customers Are Being Gouged’: Trump Tells DOJ To Look Into Gasoline Prices (ZH)
• An AI Cyber Apocalypse Is ‘Months, Not Years’ Away, Five Eyes Warns (Moran)
• US To Set Up Testing Ranges Mimicking Ukraine Battlefield (RT)
• US Carmakers Could Produce Missiles – Trump (RT)
• Journal Under Fire for Retracting Article Challenging Claims of Racism (Turley)
• Investigation Launched Into Von der Leyen Over Secret Chat With Zelensky (TASS)
• Sweltering Heat As Europe Heatwave Spreads (BBC)

 


 

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2069522132988543210?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2069539332084375596?s=20

 


 


The more they give in, the stronger their claims.

• Iran Calls MoU Deal A ‘US Defeat’ (ZH)

“The war is going very well. As you know, we’re winning by a lot. Iran is making very big concessions,” Trump told reporters at the Capitol. “We’ll see what happens — but it has been very, very, very powerful,” the US President added. Tehran has remained insistent it never agreed to allow nuclear inspector access, and that the Strait of Hormuz is opening on its terms. Meanwhile, the latest on the Lebanon tenuous ceasefire and crisis:


Tehran Provokes Trump: Deal to End War a ‘Declaration of US Defeat’. The post-war narrative battle between Washington and Tehran intensified Wednesday after Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf claimed the recently signed Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) – and confirmed in Switzerland – amounted to nothing less than a US capitulation. Speaking in Baku during a gathering of parliaments from member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Ghalibaf argued that the agreement validated Iran’s long-held position that negotiations only succeed when foreign powers abandon coercion and recognize the Islamic Republic’s rights.

“The Islamabad memorandum of understanding became a declaration of the US defeat,” Ghalibaf said. The remarks underscore the widening disconnect between how Washington and Tehran are portraying the agreement. While the Trump administration has presented the MoU as evidence that its pressure campaign forced concessions from Iran, Iranian officials continue to frame the deal as proof that the United States ultimately backed away from attempts to dictate terms.

Ghalibaf further suggested that the agreement demonstrated dialogue can only produce results when the opposing side ceases efforts to impose its will and instead accepts Iran’s sovereign rights. Iran has lately stated that it asserted its red lines through ‘action’.

Energy Secretary: 72 Ships Have Exited Strait in Last Day
Several vessels have already navigated the Strait of Hormuz utilizing a fresh evacuation framework established by the United Nations’ shipping agency, an official confirmed on Wednesday. More via newswires:US Energy Secretary Wright says roughly 72 ships have exited Strait of Hormuz in last 24 hours. “Ships have already begun to pass under the plan,” stated a spokesperson for the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO), though they opted not to disclose specific details regarding the transiting vessels.

According to the latest LSEG ship-tracking data Wednesday, at least two dry bulk carriers and one cargo vessel successfully crossed the strait under the new program within a 12-hour window. An additional analysis of ship movements by Reuters, utilizing data from LSEG and MarineTraffic, indicated that at least 35 other commercial vessels – primarily dry bulk, cargo, and container ships – are gearing up to make the passage. Brent crude oil prices fell below $75 a barrel late yesterday, marking the first time the global benchmark has traded under that level since the outbreak of the Trump-initiated Iran conflict. The drop in crude prices could provide relief for consumers and businesses by easing pressure on fuel costs and inflation, a desired Washington outcome of the MoU signing – for which Trump has come under severe criticism from hawks at home. Speaking of escalating, we have another early morning Trump Truth Social statement, openly contradicting the consistent stated position of Tehran leaders.

Read more …

“The US president reportedly said “all the Jews” are tired of the Israeli prime minister..”

• Trump Threatened Netanyahu With ‘Divorce’, NYT Reporters Say In New Book (RT)

US President Donald Trump claimed that “all the Jews” are tired of Benjamin Netanyahu and threatened the Israeli prime minister with “divorce” between the close allies during a phone call, according to a new book by New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. The account comes from ‘Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump’, excerpts of which were cited by media outlets on Tuesday. The heated exchange reportedly took place in September 2025, when Trump was pushing Israel to accept his peace plan for Gaza. He spoke with Netanyahu in the presence of US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.


“Everybody’s sick of you, Bibi. All the Jews are sick of you. Even the two Jews on this call are sick of you,” Trump reportedly told Netanyahu, according to the Times of Israel. “Everybody hates you, and I’ve stood by you,” Trump said, warning that Israel’s refusal to accept the deal would result in “a divorce” between the countries, according to The Independent. Trump and Netanyahu praised their close cooperation during the opening weeks of the US-Israeli war against Iran, which was launched on February 28. Trump became increasingly critical of Israel as efforts to subdue Iran faltered and peace talks stalled.

Trump condemned Israeli strikes in Lebanon after Iran threatened to pull out of negotiations, at one point arguing that Netanyahu has “no f**king judgment” and reportedly calling him “f**king crazy.” According to the Washington Post, US intelligence agencies recently warned Trump that Netanyahu is likely to attempt to undermine efforts to secure a lasting peace with Iran. Both leaders have faced criticism at home, with opponents arguing that the interim agreement signed by the US and Iran last week failed to achieve their stated war aims.

Read more …

The system makes the Dems live on as zombies. You need two parties, and it’s -practically, not theoretically- impossible to add a third one.

• The Democrat Party Is Dead (Matt Margolis)

New York just gave America a preview of who’s actually running the Democrat Party, and it isn’t Hakeem Jeffries. On Tuesday, all three socialist candidates endorsed by socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani swept their targeted congressional primaries. Three races, three wins, zero exceptions. Three Democrat incumbents in safe districts all lost. “Their positions are some of the most extreme & far left Dems have seen,” Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin said on X. Trust me, he’s not exaggerating.


Darializa Avila Chevalier took NY-13 on a platform built around abolishing prisons, abolishing ICE, abolishing borders, defunding the police, and opposing the deportation of every illegal immigrant, including violent criminals. Claire Valdez won NY-7, promising citizenship and voting rights for people who broke into this country illegally, taxpayer-funded transgender medical treatments, and the elimination of private health insurance for every American. These aren’t fringe positions anymore. They’re the new mainstream of the Democrat Party, and voters in these districts chose them enthusiastically.


And no Democrat is safe. Just look at NY-10, where Brad Lander demolished Rep. Dan Goldman, grabbing nearly 65% of the vote. Goldman was one of the loudest anti-Trump voices in Congress, and he led impeachment efforts against President Trump. None of that mattered. His support for Israel and his refusal to endorse Mamdani are the reasons he lost. Lander, meanwhile, ran on abolishing ICE, forgiving almost $2 trillion in student loans, and packing the Supreme Court.= That’s the candidate Democrat primary voters preferred over a guy who spent years trying to remove Trump from office.

The Democrat establishment knows exactly what happened, and it’s terrified. “Tonight wasn’t just a bad night for so-called ‘Leader’ Hakeem Jeffries. It was the night the Democrat establishment officially surrendered to Zohran Mamdani and the socialist wing of their party,” NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella said in a statement. “Every House Democrat, in safe and competitive districts alike, will now answer to the radicals calling the shots. And Americans should be terrified by where the Democrat Party is headed.” Even CNN’s Van Jones couldn’t spin his way out of this one. “This is a battle between the establishment and this insurgency,” Jones said. “And the roof is collapsing on the Democratic party establishment tonight.”

Here’s the reality nobody on the left wants to say out loud: the Democrat Party as it existed even a few years ago is finished. The socialist wing didn’t build a new party from scratch. It crawled inside the old one and took it over from the inside, like the zombie fungus controlling a dead ant. The Democrat Party is the corpse. The Socialist Party is what’s controlling it now. This should terrify the establishment because it makes it impossible to keep hiding what the party has become. This is going to terrify independent voters, who are watching candidates run on abolishing borders and prisons while still calling themselves Democrats. They’ll have no choice but to vote Republican to stop the radicals from taking over.

The socialist takeover isn’t slowing down. It’s accelerating, and every safe-district Democrat in Congress now has to answer to it. And now Republicans have been handed an opening most political parties only dream of. “That’s what the left is putting out. It’s these radical leftists that are being elected. They’re being inspired by Mamdani, AOC, Bernie Sanders. They’re running all across the country, and the only good news is in a lot of these districts where it’s actually competitive districts. If they’re putting up these radicals, we’re getting a lot of favorable matchups,” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said on Newsmax. “It’s the mainstream. This is what’s happened to their Party. They’ve gone so far to the left. This is normal. But the people are going to reject this at the polls.”

Gruters argues the math looks really good for the GOP. “There’s 18 toss-up seats,” he pointed out. “We’re at 212. I think we have a chance to defy history and win these midterms. It’s because the left has gone so far to the left. It’s really the choices are crazy versus normal, and what do people want?”

Read more …

”IDEOLOGY: Capitalism is bad. Law enforcement are pigs. Policy should support emotions. The collective should rule every decision.”

• ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Now Officially Controls the Democrat Party (CTH)

It did not happen last night folks. It took them another 15 years after they installed Obama to become the legitimate heirs to the political party formerly known as Democrats.mThe progressive movement is now branded as “Democrat Socialists of America” (DSA), but those who have followed the arc of this group well understand every single member within DSA is from the Occupy Wall Street / Anarchy movement that preceded it. Fingers are being pointed toward New York as the epicenter of the new Democrat Party Headquarters of DSA, which is a fitting location of focus given the OWS origin.


The front line of the DSA movement consists of 18 to 30-year-olds, mostly white, urban, upper-middle-income activists, carrying Macbooks with anarchist stickers and physical attire resembling a blend of hipster ‘grunge’ and skateboard beanie resistance. They don’t shower much and love to talk about AOC and Bernie on Social Media. Don’t belittle them, they are authentic. They don’t misunderstand things; they bought into the nonsense and genuinely believe the popular narrative sold to them since High School that capitalism is horrible and Communism or Socialism is the preferred system of government.

Individually, not one of them would shed a tear if their collective comrades broke into their parent’s houses tomorrow and murdered the elders. When joined in group assemblies, their emotions are controlled by the sensibility of the group. This is the Mao generation, repeating and rhyming. IDEOLOGY: Capitalism is bad. Law enforcement are pigs. Policy should support emotions. The collective should rule every decision. Democrat socialists believe all dissent must be squashed unless they actually lose a popular election – then, the system is oppressing them. Speech that argues against their belief system is ‘violence’. However, violence that supports their belief system is ‘speech’.

Democrat Socialists of America are factually Occupy Wall Street activists. The traditional mechanisms of self-controlling morality do not apply to this group of generational ideologues. The haves -vs- have nots is their religion. They never cede power and elections do not remove them. Go look at history, the only thing that has ever stopped Socialism is physical violence. You may have read the stories of multi-billionaires building bunkers. The predictable DSA is why. People who say, “violence is not the answer” are pretending they don’t know history.

POLITICO – […] Fresh off sweeping victories across New York City that showcased the growing power of the anti-establishment progressive left inside the Democratic Party, Democratic Socialists of America leaders, eager to capitalize on their momentum, are already plotting their next act: making sure one of their own is on the presidential primary debate stage, whether the party wants them or not. “What DSA represents is a real contrast to Democrats who have run the last couple of elections on fear,” DSA national co-chair Megan Romer said. “You can’t run on that. You have to offer an alternative. And it’s really important that we be involved in that conversation in 2028. It’s important that we have somebody saying sensible things.”

Their search process is already underway. This summer, DSA is dispatching surveys to all 250 of its chapters, asking members to weigh who they want to back and why, and return their findings to national leadership by Sept. 15, details the group first shared with POLITICO. DSA expects to receive a stack of 20-page to 40-page dossiers from chapters coast to coast weighing in on who should carry the democratic socialist banner into 2028.The organization plans to hold national discussions, including with leaders like New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is 84 and not expected to run in 2028, with a formal vote expected at the group’s 2027 convention next year — though leaders say they could move faster if the primary timeline demands it.

“We’re going to be talking about millions of hours knocking doors for 2028 — so when we decide to really run somebody, people have to feel like they had a say,” Romer said. Mamdani-backed candidates swept three closely watched New York congressional primaries Tuesday, with Claire Valdez, Brad Lander and Darializa Avila Chevalier all defeating more establishment-aligned rivals — including two incumbents. It was a major show of force for Mamdani’s political operation, and fresh evidence of the left’s growing muscle heading into 2028. “They ask, ‘Who do you want to run in 2028?’ Then they ask, ‘When does the race for 2028 begin?’ It starts now. It starts on Tuesday,” Mamdani said at a Brooklyn rally last week.

The elephant in the room for the group, of course, is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Read more …

Jerry Nadler, George Conway et al, as in: The anti-Trump field.

“JFK’s grandson Jack Schlossberg fails to advance in election to replace Jerry Nadler in Manhattan district. “

• Mamdani-backed Candidates Sweep Democratic Primaries In NYC (Guardian)

Zohran Mamdani’s growing influence over the Democratic party was on show in New York City on Tuesday as three congressional candidates endorsed by New York’s democratic socialist mayor won closely watched primaries, while voters in Maryland, Utah and South Carolina cast ballots in primaries and runoffs.Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller who also ran for mayor last year before endorsing Mamdani, won his race comfortably, defeating the Democratic representative Dan Goldman.


Another Mamdani ally, Claire Valdez, a state lawmaker and former union organizer, defeated Antonio Reynoso, the preferred successor of retiring Democratic Representative Nydia Velázquez in New York’s seventh district, encompassing parts of Brooklyn and Queens. And in a stunning upset, the public defense investigator Darializa Avila Chevalier toppled Representative Adriano Espaillat, the powerful five-term incumbent who chairs the Congressional Hispanic caucus, in the state’s diverse 13th congressional district, which covers Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx.

“What a glorious time to be a New Yorker,” Lander declared at this election night party in Brooklyn, where he was joined by the mayor. Mamdani then appeared at a watch party for Valdez, where he told a jubilant crowd: “The old politics that got us into this crisis is not the politics that’s going to get us out of this crisis.” It was a clean sweep for Mamdani, who waded into the House primaries earlier this year, spending his political capital to boost three leftwing allies – a gamble that would test his popularity and his influence. With his slate of candidates all but certain to be elected to Congress in November, Mamdani has left his stamp on the state’s congressional delegation and expanded his ascendant progressive movement.

Elsewhere in the city, Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of John F Kennedy, was unsuccessful in his bid to revive the political legacy of the US’s most vaunted political family. In a House race that attracted outsized national attention, Schlossberg, 33, had hoped to parlay his huge social media presence and charisma into a Congressional seat, but he came up short in a crowded field of Democrats hoping to succeed the long-serving representative Jerry Nadler. Micah Lasher, a longtime New York politician and self-described “nerd”, won the primary in New York’s 12th district, a deep-blue district whose voters tend to identify as liberal rather than left-wing.

The race also included the prominent anti-Trump critic George Conway and state assembly-member Alex Bores, whose candidacy became the fulcrum for what observers described as an “AI civil war”. Lasher will be the heavy favorite to win the safely Democratic district in the November midterm election. Late on Tuesday night, Queens-born Donald Trump celebrated the defeat of both Goldman and Conway in a pair of social media posts. “Weak and pathetic Congressman Dan Goldman just lost, BIG! I guess people didn’t like him illegally targeting President TRUMP,” the president said of the congressman, who served as the lead counsel to House Democrats during the Trump’s first impeachment. Of Conway, whose ex-wife was a top adviser to the president during his first term, Trump gleefully predicted that he would “end up at about 5% of the vote in a rather weak field of young and aggressive Communists”.

Read more …

UK: No

US: Trump is doing it.

• Can Anyone Govern Britain — Or America? (Daniel McCcarthy)

As Britain gets ready for its seventh prime minister in just 10 years, it’s time to ask whether the parliamentary system itself is broken. That might explain not only why landslide election victories don’t translate into stable leadership in Britain but also why America’s Congress is so feckless. Is representative government an idea whose time has passed? In Europe as well as America, leftists prefer that judges and bureaucrats wield permanent power, as supposedly impartial experts who know best how to stop the weather from changing and how many genders there are.


Britain’s Labour party started out as a vehicle for the working class, in theory. It was closely connected to the country’s major industrial unions — but Britain in the 21st century has lost most of its hard industry, and Labour is now led by the same kind of socially left-wing, technocratic wonks that make up the “inner party” of the Democrats in this country. Brexit, passed by the British people in a referendum 10 years ago this week, proved Labour had lost the working class — the party elite favored remaining in the European Union, but working-class voters themselves cast their ballots for “leave.”

Unfortunately, the Conservative party’s elite also favored “remain” — Prime Minister David Cameron himself did, and losing the Brexit referendum compelled him to resign. Yet Cameron was followed by another Conservative PM, Theresa May, who had also been a remainer. It took a third Tory PM, Boris Johnson, to follow through on the voters’ mandate, but Johnson proved to be Britain’s Joe Biden where immigration was concerned, unleashing the “Boriswave” of mass migration, which flooded Britain with some 4 million newcomers from places like India, China, Pakistan and Nigeria.

Personal scandals forced Johnson from office before the scale of the damage his policies did came to light — but bond markets didn’t tolerate Johnson’s successor, Liz Truss, for long. That left Rishi Sunak to lead the Conservatives in 2024 to their first general election defeat in 14 years. In that time, Conservatives had given Britain same-sex marriage, bigger government, deeper debt, more green-energy regulation and record-high immigration. Labour more than doubled its number of seats in Parliament with Keir Starmer leading the party into the election, yet the landslide didn’t translate into any mandate for him.

His popularity soon slid and polls indicated the Reform party would win the next election, making Nigel Farage prime minister. Labour is now gambling its problems are personal, not political, and once Starmer has made way for a new PM — virtually certain to be Andy Burnham — its majority will be salvageable. Burnham is even more left-wing than Starmer: at least as far left on social issues and even more enthusiastic about nationalizing industry. Farage is wagering Starmer wasn’t the millstone around Labour’s neck — the party’s politics are.

But even as traditional parties of the left and right elsewhere in Europe have decayed in ways much like those of Britain’s Tories and Labour, new populist parties have struggled to win and maintain power. Farage has to contend not only with Labour and what’s left of the Conservatives, but also with a small but vociferous insurgency to his right, the Restore party. All this suggests Burnham or Farage can’t count on enjoying a tenure longer than Starmer’s or Sunak’s. Parliamentary elections haven’t produced a stable British government by anyone in the last 16 years. What are the odds the next election, which has to be held by August 2029, will do so? [..]

Read more …

“Trump is also asserting that Iran will allow IEAE inspectors in, something the Islamic Republic is also vehemently rejecting.”

• Brent Falls To Pre-War Levels (ZH)

Brent crude oil prices fell below $75 a barrel late yesterday, marking the first time the global benchmark has traded under that level since the outbreak of the Trump-initiated Iran conflict. The drop in crude prices could provide relief for consumers and businesses by easing pressure on fuel costs and inflation, a desired Washington outcome of the MoU signing – for which Trump has come under severe criticism from hawks at home. Speaking of escalating, we have another early morning Trump Truth Social statement, openly contradicting the consistent stated position of Tehran leaders.


Since the Switzerland high level talks led by Vance, there’s been a series of issues where Tehran and Washington have issued clearly contradictory statements. Trump says in the fresh statement that Iran informed the United States that there would be “NO TOLLS, NO INSURANCE COSTS, & NO OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND” imposed on vessels traveling through the strategic waterway. Trump as is typical criticized media reports that had suggested Iran could seek payments from ships using the route, calling such coverage “Fake News.” He added that if the information provided by Iran proved inaccurate, ongoing negotiations between the two sides would end “immediately.”

The president also denied reports that the United States had provided funds directly to Iran or released Iranian assets without conditions. “No money has been given to Iran, or released from their money to them, by the U.S.,” he said. However, Trump stated that Washington plans to make some Iranian funds available for agricultural purchases. According to the president, the money would be used to buy US farm products, including “Corn, Wheat, Soybeans, and more.” But Iranian leadership has vehemently rejected this narrative too.

“Food is desperately needed in Iran,” Trump said, adding that the purchases would be made “exclusively from the United States. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes, and any disruption or additional costs imposed on vessels passing through the channel could have significant implications for global trade and oil markets. It is officially ‘open’ in the wake of the MoU signing – but the next few days and weeks will be telling.Meanwhile, some new developments on the Hormuz opening front, and Qatar LNG:

Qatar’s prime minister said establishing a hotline between the US and Iran is essential to prevent rogue actors impeding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, as he predicted that the Gulf state would resume normal liquefied natural gas production “within a few weeks”. –FT. Trump is also asserting that Iran will allow IEAE inspectors in, something the Islamic Republic is also vehemently rejecting.

Read more …

Exactly like the old Lou Reed tune:

They’re never early, they’re always late.

First thing you learn is that you always gotta wait.

• ‘Customers Are Being Gouged’: Trump Tells DOJ To Look Into Gasoline Prices (ZH)

President Trump said on Wednesday that he had instructed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to open an investigation into oil companies over high gasoline prices. In a Truth Social post, Trump said that oil companies have not lowered their prices at the pump despite a recent decline in crude prices following the U.S.–Iran preliminary agreement. “Those prices are dropping like a rock! In other words, customers are being ‘gouged,’” he said. “Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I’m seeing!” Brent crude futures fell below $75 per barrel on Wednesday (back near pre-war levels), while U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures dropped to $72.29, amid the resumption of shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.


Bloomberg’s energy guru, Javier Blas, remarked after President Trump’s post: “US President Trump, all political theatre, has just discovered the refining (and marketing) margin.” The national average price for regular gasoline stood at $3.93 per gallon on June 23, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), down from $4.04 the previous week. The gas price was $4.53 per gallon a month ago. Of course, given the supply/refinery chain, it takes time (two weeks) for crude prices to ripple through to pump prices… AAA said it observed that gas prices remain above the levels before the conflict with Iran erupted in February.

The national average price for regular gas was $2.98 on Feb. 28, the day when the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran, triggering the war. “Getting prices back down to prewar levels will take longer because of the time it takes to resume shipping and production,” Marie Dodds, public affairs director for AAA Oregon/Idaho, said in a statement. As Aldgra Fredly reports for The Epoch Times, US and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding last week to end the war. Under the agreement, the Strait of Hormuz would be fully reopened, and Tehran would not procure or develop a nuclear weapon. The United States also agreed to waive sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told ABC News on June 21 that commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz had returned to normal levels, and that Americans should expect further declines in oil, gasoline, and other energy prices as traffic resumed. “Flows of oil and natural gas through the straits have already returned to normal, and they will continue that way whatever happens with the negotiations with the Iranians,” he said.

Arsenio Dominguez, secretary-general of the International Maritime Organization, said on June 23 that more than 11,000 seafarers stranded in the region due to war would be evacuated under a coordinated effort with Iran, Oman, other coastal states in the region, the United States, and the maritime industry following the U.S.–Iran preliminary deal. “We have secured the necessary safety guarantees and have thoroughly verified the conditions for safe navigation to support these operations,” Dominguez said in a statement. Iran had previously blocked traffic in the Strait of Hormuz—a critical waterway through which a significant share of global oil and gas shipments passes—in response to the U.S. and Israeli attacks on its nuclear and military sites.

Read more …

“Frontier AI models are anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.”

• An AI Cyber Apocalypse Is ‘Months, Not Years’ Away, Five Eyes Warns (Moran)

The Five Eyes intelligence group, comprising the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, is warning governments and corporations that AI models capable of launching devastating cyber attacks that could overwhelm their defenses are months, not years away. They are urging nations and companies to “act now” to improve cyber defenses.


This is a highly unusual warning from the normally circumspect intelligence group. The Five Eyes alliance typically operates with deep, classified sharing. They do not issue public joint statements lightly. When they align to release a unified message directly to the public and business leaders, it signals that the threat landscape has shifted in a way that regular, incremental IT adjustments cannot handle. In short, Five Eyes doesn’t do “hype.” When it releases a joint warning, it’s to alert governments and corporations to a real, imminent threat.

Usually, the group’s intelligence warnings paint a picture of cybersecurity risks across a multi-year window. This warning explicitly breaks from that convention, shifting the perspective from years to just “months.””While AI will help us improve cyber defense over time, it also accelerates the speed, scale, and sophistication of cyber threats,” the group notes. “Frontier AI models are anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. The timeline is not years; it is months.”

The writing has been on the wall for the last few months regarding an increase in urgency in the potency and capabilities of newer AI models. For instance, earlier this month, the U.S. government took the unusual step of ordering the AI startup Anthropic to suspend access to its powerful Mythos and Fable 5 models for foreign nationals. Policymakers expressed severe national security concerns that these specific models possess unprecedented capabilities to independently identify code vulnerabilities, potentially resulting in a “vulnerability tsunami” if misused by hostile actors.

From the Five Eyes Statement:

Cyber risk can no longer be treated as a purely technical issue. This is a core business risk and leadership responsibility. Boards and executives should ensure cyber resilience is in place and works under pressure. It is not enough to have controls. Leaders must be confident those controls will perform during a real incident. This requires reassessing long-standing trade-offs and using AI deliberately to strengthen defense – not just improve efficiency.

Core principles:
• Secure-by-design and secure-by-default must become standard practice not an aspiration.
• Resilience cannot depend on a single solution or technology.Defense in depth remains essential.
• As AI systems evolve, new and previously unknown vulnerabilities will emerge, including zero day vulnerabilities.
• Breaches will occur. Preparedness helps you contain them quickly and prevent escalation into major operational and financial crises.

Rather than targeting IT administrators with technical alerts, it directly holds boards and corporate executives accountable, framing AI-driven cyber risk as a fundamental threat to business continuity and trust. It demands that leaders move past treating cybersecurity as an IT standalone department and actively use AI defensively to outpace adversaries.”

“What it was saying is that in an age of AI, breaches will occur. It’s not a matter of if, but when, so it’s important to get prepared now,” Olivia Shen, director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the University of Sydney, told CNN. “Sophisticated businesses, usually your large corporations, they already invest in cybersecurity, and they’ll be better prepared,” Shen said. “The ones who are more exposed will be those small and medium-sized businesses who maybe have under invested so far, and they’ll basically be like sitting ducks.”

The speed with which these cyber threats are materializing is putting a damper on some efforts to place significant guardrails on AI. This month, several dozen cybersecurity researchers, AI entrepreneurs, and corporate executives signed an open letter urging the Trump administration to commit to “an open, scientific and transparent process of handling AI risk assessments” and said it was “essential” for security teams to “find and fix flaws in their own newly-written as well as decades of legacy code faster than our adversaries.”

“We know these technologies can be used for both defensive and offensive purposes, and we need a few more guardrails about how we can maximize the benefits for defensive cyber security, while gate keeping it away from potential cyber adversaries and scammers and cyber criminals,” Shen said. When the first major breaches happen, perhaps then we’ll get more serious about the speed with which AI development is outpacing our ability to adequately control it.

Read more …

Drones.. US lags behind.

• US To Set Up Testing Ranges Mimicking Ukraine Battlefield (RT)

The US will set up at least two domestic testing ranges that mimic battlefield conditions in Ukraine, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said on Tuesday. Driscoll said defense contractors will have access to the sites, where the Army and industry “can start to do much more aggressive testing,” according to DefenseScoop. The US has been struggling to keep pace with rapidly evolving drone technology used extensively by both Russia and Ukraine. “You can have a kind of electronic warfare and all of the contested environment created, and you can have drone manufacturers and counter-drone tool-builders engaging together,” Driscoll told reporters at an Army-hosted industry event.


“Then, we also want soldiers to be able to go there so that they can strengthen their skills and work hand-in-hand with developers,” he added. According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon is actively seeking companies capable of producing 300,000 low-cost kamikaze drones and is prepared to spend $54.6 billion next year on an expanded drone warfare program. The widespread use of surveillance and attack drones in the Ukraine conflict has created vast ‘kill zones’ along the front line, with both sides using UAVs to repel mechanized assaults and carry out strikes deep inside enemy territory. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov said earlier this month that domestic companies now have the capacity to produce more than 15,000 FPV drones per day, up from around 15,000 per month in 2023.

Moscow has warned that Western supplies of drone technology and other weapons to Kiev make NATO a de facto participant in the conflict and risk further escalation. Ukraine frequently uses drones to strike civilian targets. Last month, UAVs destroyed a college dormitory in Starobelsk, Russia, killing 21 students. On June 3, a Ukrainian drone struck a commuter bus in Enakievo, killing eight passengers. Two weeks later, a drone hit a bus carrying a youth football team from Belarus near the Russian village of Nelzhichi, killing a pregnant woman and injuring eight people, including six children.

Read more …

“Washington wants to expand weapons production after reportedly depleting key stockpiles in the Iran war and Ukraine”..

• US Carmakers Could Produce Missiles – Trump (RT)

US automakers could begin producing missiles and other weapons as Washington moves to expand military output and replenish its arsenals, President Donald Trump has said. Speaking to reporters at the White House on Monday, Trump said car companies with spare factory capacity are discussing deals to manufacture weapons, including Patriot air-defense missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles. ”They’re dealing with General Motors. They’re dealing with Ford,” Trump said. “I know General Motors is all excited about building weapons now.”


He added that some plants belonging to the two carmakers are expected to be converted to military production, describing the shift as part of a “big strong economic push” to produce arms. His remarks come after the Wall Street Journal reported in April that the Pentagon had approached General Motors, Ford, GE Aerospace, and Oshkosh about retooling civilian factories to produce munitions and other military equipment. The talks were reportedly part of an effort to put US industry on what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has called a “wartime footing,” echoing the World War II-era conversion of Detroit factories to military production.

The push comes amid mounting concern over the state of US weapons stockpiles after years of arms deliveries to Ukraine under former President Joe Biden and heavy missile use during the recent US-Israeli war against Iran. US media and think-tanks have warned that Washington burned through large quantities of critical munitions during the Iran campaign, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, Patriot interceptors, THAAD missiles, and other advanced systems.

Reuters has also reported that depleted inventories could delay US arms deliveries to fellow NATO members. Trump has downplayed shortage concerns, saying the US has “quite a few” missiles but wants to keep larger reserves. His administration has requested a record military budget of around $1.5 trillion for the 2027 fiscal year, with much of the increase expected to go towards replenishing stockpiles and expanding production.

Read more …

“..psychology as a field is a tool of white power..”

• Journal Under Fire for Retracting Article Challenging Claims of Racism (Turley)

We have previously discussed academic journals canceling publications that challenge the orthodox views of mainstream scholars. The latest such example can be found in the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists, which pulled the 2025 article of Arna Mitchell who questioned claims that psychology as a field is a tool of white power. The editors reportedly declared that such conclusions are inconsistent with the publication’s values.


Dr. Kumari Valentine, a psychologist and former editor of the journal, wrote an article raising concerns over the retraction: The reason given for the removal was not research fraud, plagiarism, ethical misconduct, or factual error. Rather, the NZCCP Council determined that retaining the article was inconsistent with the values of the College and could perpetuate harm to Maori. The article, He Wero Ano: Don’t Just Tell Me, Show Me How Science and Psychology Are Racist in New Zealand, took issue with the broad, unsubstantiated claims of systemic racism in psychology across all levels of the discipline, including that science itself is a social construct of white Europeans and white power.

Mitchell, a Maori woman herself, also took issue with the view that tribal ways of knowing should be given equal weight to scientific ways of knowing in the training and practice of psychologists in New Zealand. One would think that such a viewpoint, particularly from a Maori woman, would, at a minimum, be welcomed as a provocative and interesting perspective. However, various readers were less interested in reading it or even responding to it. They campaigned to cancel it.

Some did respond, saying they felt the critique was based on a misunderstanding of Kaupapa Maori psychology. That should also be a welcome perspective in allowing a free exchange of viewpoints on the subject. Some faculty have cried foul, calling the cancellation raw censorship. This is reminiscent of the controversy at the Emory Law Journal and the firing of an editor at JAMA. These controversies are a reflection of the viewpoint intolerance that has taken hold of much of academia, supporting groups, and journals.

Read more …

Nice pair.

• Investigation Launched Into Von der Leyen Over Secret Chat With Zelensky (TASS)

European Ombudsman Teresa Anjinho has launched an investigation into European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over a secret chat involving German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Vladimir Zelensky, the Berliner Zeitung newspaper reported. Anjinho notified the European Commission of the investigation last week. She is examining whether the EC violated transparency rules by refusing to grant the Dutch organization Follow the Money (FTM) access to the correspondence.


The European Commission justified its refusal by stating that publishing the chat data could “complicate the international relations of the European Union (and its member states) with third countries.” “I have decided to launch a probe into the European Commission’s actions regarding the applicant’s request in accordance with EU regulations concerning public access to documents,” Anjinho wrote to the FTM organization. She expects to meet with EC representatives by mid-July.

Read more …

Places are hot that were not built for it. 40 people drowned in France alone in a few days.

• Sweltering Heat As Europe Heatwave Spreads (BBC)

France is bracing for another day of exceptionally hot weather, with more than half the country remaining under a red heat alert on Wednesday. Tens of thousands of homes have been left without power in western Brittany, while a major wildfire was brought under control overnight in the Maine-et-Loire region. It comes after the country experienced its hottest June day since records began on Tuesday, with an average temperature of 29.8C (85.54F) recorded.


The heatwave is expected to spread to other parts of western Europe on Wednesday, with an orange alert for dangerous weather in place for parts of the Netherlands. Temperatures are expected to peak in the Netherlands and Belgium on Friday, while Germany is expected to see the mercury rise to 40C (104F) over the weekend. The heatwave is also expected to spread to eastern Europe over the next few days, with severe heat warnings issued for countries including Poland, Croatia and Hungary for later in the week.

So far, France, Spain and Italy have been hardest hit by the heatwave. Forty people have drowned in heatwave-related incidents in France since last Thursday, according to the prime minister.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/niccruzpatane/status/2069567930308624607?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


M.C. Escher Dream 1935


• Iran Calls MoU Deal A ‘US Defeat’ (ZH)
• Trump Threatened Netanyahu With ‘Divorce’, NYT Reporters Say In New Book (RT)
• The Democrat Party Is Dead (Matt Margolis)
• ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Now Officially Controls the Democrat Party (CTH)
• Mamdani-backed Candidates Sweep Democratic Primaries In NYC (Guardian)
• Can Anyone Govern Britain — Or America? (Daniel McCcarthy)
• Brent Falls To Pre-War Levels (ZH)
• ‘Customers Are Being Gouged’: Trump Tells DOJ To Look Into Gasoline Prices (ZH)
• An AI Cyber Apocalypse Is ‘Months, Not Years’ Away, Five Eyes Warns (Moran)
• US To Set Up Testing Ranges Mimicking Ukraine Battlefield (RT)
• US Carmakers Could Produce Missiles – Trump (RT)
• Journal Under Fire for Retracting Article Challenging Claims of Racism (Turley)
• Investigation Launched Into Von der Leyen Over Secret Chat With Zelensky (TASS)
• Sweltering Heat As Europe Heatwave Spreads (BBC)

 


 

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2069522132988543210?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2069539332084375596?s=20 https:/twitter.com/Adams_Tech_AI/status/2069412440140325371?s=20

 


 


The more they give in, the stronger their claims.

• Iran Calls MoU Deal A ‘US Defeat’ (ZH)

“The war is going very well. As you know, we’re winning by a lot. Iran is making very big concessions,” Trump told reporters at the Capitol. “We’ll see what happens — but it has been very, very, very powerful,” the US President added. Tehran has remained insistent it never agreed to allow nuclear inspector access, and that the Strait of Hormuz is opening on its terms. Meanwhile, the latest on the Lebanon tenuous ceasefire and crisis:


Tehran Provokes Trump: Deal to End War a ‘Declaration of US Defeat’. The post-war narrative battle between Washington and Tehran intensified Wednesday after Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf claimed the recently signed Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) – and confirmed in Switzerland – amounted to nothing less than a US capitulation. Speaking in Baku during a gathering of parliaments from member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Ghalibaf argued that the agreement validated Iran’s long-held position that negotiations only succeed when foreign powers abandon coercion and recognize the Islamic Republic’s rights.

“The Islamabad memorandum of understanding became a declaration of the US defeat,” Ghalibaf said. The remarks underscore the widening disconnect between how Washington and Tehran are portraying the agreement. While the Trump administration has presented the MoU as evidence that its pressure campaign forced concessions from Iran, Iranian officials continue to frame the deal as proof that the United States ultimately backed away from attempts to dictate terms.

Ghalibaf further suggested that the agreement demonstrated dialogue can only produce results when the opposing side ceases efforts to impose its will and instead accepts Iran’s sovereign rights. Iran has lately stated that it asserted its red lines through ‘action’.

Energy Secretary: 72 Ships Have Exited Strait in Last Day
Several vessels have already navigated the Strait of Hormuz utilizing a fresh evacuation framework established by the United Nations’ shipping agency, an official confirmed on Wednesday. More via newswires:US Energy Secretary Wright says roughly 72 ships have exited Strait of Hormuz in last 24 hours. “Ships have already begun to pass under the plan,” stated a spokesperson for the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO), though they opted not to disclose specific details regarding the transiting vessels.

According to the latest LSEG ship-tracking data Wednesday, at least two dry bulk carriers and one cargo vessel successfully crossed the strait under the new program within a 12-hour window. An additional analysis of ship movements by Reuters, utilizing data from LSEG and MarineTraffic, indicated that at least 35 other commercial vessels – primarily dry bulk, cargo, and container ships – are gearing up to make the passage. Brent crude oil prices fell below $75 a barrel late yesterday, marking the first time the global benchmark has traded under that level since the outbreak of the Trump-initiated Iran conflict. The drop in crude prices could provide relief for consumers and businesses by easing pressure on fuel costs and inflation, a desired Washington outcome of the MoU signing – for which Trump has come under severe criticism from hawks at home. Speaking of escalating, we have another early morning Trump Truth Social statement, openly contradicting the consistent stated position of Tehran leaders.

Read more …

“The US president reportedly said “all the Jews” are tired of the Israeli prime minister..”

• Trump Threatened Netanyahu With ‘Divorce’, NYT Reporters Say In New Book (RT)

US President Donald Trump claimed that “all the Jews” are tired of Benjamin Netanyahu and threatened the Israeli prime minister with “divorce” between the close allies during a phone call, according to a new book by New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. The account comes from ‘Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump’, excerpts of which were cited by media outlets on Tuesday. The heated exchange reportedly took place in September 2025, when Trump was pushing Israel to accept his peace plan for Gaza. He spoke with Netanyahu in the presence of US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.


“Everybody’s sick of you, Bibi. All the Jews are sick of you. Even the two Jews on this call are sick of you,” Trump reportedly told Netanyahu, according to the Times of Israel. “Everybody hates you, and I’ve stood by you,” Trump said, warning that Israel’s refusal to accept the deal would result in “a divorce” between the countries, according to The Independent. Trump and Netanyahu praised their close cooperation during the opening weeks of the US-Israeli war against Iran, which was launched on February 28. Trump became increasingly critical of Israel as efforts to subdue Iran faltered and peace talks stalled.

Trump condemned Israeli strikes in Lebanon after Iran threatened to pull out of negotiations, at one point arguing that Netanyahu has “no f**king judgment” and reportedly calling him “f**king crazy.” According to the Washington Post, US intelligence agencies recently warned Trump that Netanyahu is likely to attempt to undermine efforts to secure a lasting peace with Iran. Both leaders have faced criticism at home, with opponents arguing that the interim agreement signed by the US and Iran last week failed to achieve their stated war aims.

Read more …

The system makes the Dems live on as zombies. You need two parties, and it’s -practically, not theoretically- impossible to add a third one.

• The Democrat Party Is Dead (Matt Margolis)

New York just gave America a preview of who’s actually running the Democrat Party, and it isn’t Hakeem Jeffries. On Tuesday, all three socialist candidates endorsed by socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani swept their targeted congressional primaries. Three races, three wins, zero exceptions. Three Democrat incumbents in safe districts all lost. “Their positions are some of the most extreme & far left Dems have seen,” Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin said on X. Trust me, he’s not exaggerating.


Darializa Avila Chevalier took NY-13 on a platform built around abolishing prisons, abolishing ICE, abolishing borders, defunding the police, and opposing the deportation of every illegal immigrant, including violent criminals. Claire Valdez won NY-7, promising citizenship and voting rights for people who broke into this country illegally, taxpayer-funded transgender medical treatments, and the elimination of private health insurance for every American. These aren’t fringe positions anymore. They’re the new mainstream of the Democrat Party, and voters in these districts chose them enthusiastically.


And no Democrat is safe. Just look at NY-10, where Brad Lander demolished Rep. Dan Goldman, grabbing nearly 65% of the vote. Goldman was one of the loudest anti-Trump voices in Congress, and he led impeachment efforts against President Trump. None of that mattered. His support for Israel and his refusal to endorse Mamdani are the reasons he lost. Lander, meanwhile, ran on abolishing ICE, forgiving almost $2 trillion in student loans, and packing the Supreme Court.= That’s the candidate Democrat primary voters preferred over a guy who spent years trying to remove Trump from office.

The Democrat establishment knows exactly what happened, and it’s terrified. “Tonight wasn’t just a bad night for so-called ‘Leader’ Hakeem Jeffries. It was the night the Democrat establishment officially surrendered to Zohran Mamdani and the socialist wing of their party,” NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella said in a statement. “Every House Democrat, in safe and competitive districts alike, will now answer to the radicals calling the shots. And Americans should be terrified by where the Democrat Party is headed.” Even CNN’s Van Jones couldn’t spin his way out of this one. “This is a battle between the establishment and this insurgency,” Jones said. “And the roof is collapsing on the Democratic party establishment tonight.”

Here’s the reality nobody on the left wants to say out loud: the Democrat Party as it existed even a few years ago is finished. The socialist wing didn’t build a new party from scratch. It crawled inside the old one and took it over from the inside, like the zombie fungus controlling a dead ant. The Democrat Party is the corpse. The Socialist Party is what’s controlling it now. This should terrify the establishment because it makes it impossible to keep hiding what the party has become. This is going to terrify independent voters, who are watching candidates run on abolishing borders and prisons while still calling themselves Democrats. They’ll have no choice but to vote Republican to stop the radicals from taking over.

The socialist takeover isn’t slowing down. It’s accelerating, and every safe-district Democrat in Congress now has to answer to it. And now Republicans have been handed an opening most political parties only dream of. “That’s what the left is putting out. It’s these radical leftists that are being elected. They’re being inspired by Mamdani, AOC, Bernie Sanders. They’re running all across the country, and the only good news is in a lot of these districts where it’s actually competitive districts. If they’re putting up these radicals, we’re getting a lot of favorable matchups,” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said on Newsmax. “It’s the mainstream. This is what’s happened to their Party. They’ve gone so far to the left. This is normal. But the people are going to reject this at the polls.”

Gruters argues the math looks really good for the GOP. “There’s 18 toss-up seats,” he pointed out. “We’re at 212. I think we have a chance to defy history and win these midterms. It’s because the left has gone so far to the left. It’s really the choices are crazy versus normal, and what do people want?”

Read more …

”IDEOLOGY: Capitalism is bad. Law enforcement are pigs. Policy should support emotions. The collective should rule every decision.”

• ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Now Officially Controls the Democrat Party (CTH)

It did not happen last night folks. It took them another 15 years after they installed Obama to become the legitimate heirs to the political party formerly known as Democrats.mThe progressive movement is now branded as “Democrat Socialists of America” (DSA), but those who have followed the arc of this group well understand every single member within DSA is from the Occupy Wall Street / Anarchy movement that preceded it. Fingers are being pointed toward New York as the epicenter of the new Democrat Party Headquarters of DSA, which is a fitting location of focus given the OWS origin.


The front line of the DSA movement consists of 18 to 30-year-olds, mostly white, urban, upper-middle-income activists, carrying Macbooks with anarchist stickers and physical attire resembling a blend of hipster ‘grunge’ and skateboard beanie resistance. They don’t shower much and love to talk about AOC and Bernie on Social Media. Don’t belittle them, they are authentic. They don’t misunderstand things; they bought into the nonsense and genuinely believe the popular narrative sold to them since High School that capitalism is horrible and Communism or Socialism is the preferred system of government.

Individually, not one of them would shed a tear if their collective comrades broke into their parent’s houses tomorrow and murdered the elders. When joined in group assemblies, their emotions are controlled by the sensibility of the group. This is the Mao generation, repeating and rhyming. IDEOLOGY: Capitalism is bad. Law enforcement are pigs. Policy should support emotions. The collective should rule every decision. Democrat socialists believe all dissent must be squashed unless they actually lose a popular election – then, the system is oppressing them. Speech that argues against their belief system is ‘violence’. However, violence that supports their belief system is ‘speech’.

Democrat Socialists of America are factually Occupy Wall Street activists. The traditional mechanisms of self-controlling morality do not apply to this group of generational ideologues. The haves -vs- have nots is their religion. They never cede power and elections do not remove them. Go look at history, the only thing that has ever stopped Socialism is physical violence. You may have read the stories of multi-billionaires building bunkers. The predictable DSA is why. People who say, “violence is not the answer” are pretending they don’t know history.

POLITICO – […] Fresh off sweeping victories across New York City that showcased the growing power of the anti-establishment progressive left inside the Democratic Party, Democratic Socialists of America leaders, eager to capitalize on their momentum, are already plotting their next act: making sure one of their own is on the presidential primary debate stage, whether the party wants them or not. “What DSA represents is a real contrast to Democrats who have run the last couple of elections on fear,” DSA national co-chair Megan Romer said. “You can’t run on that. You have to offer an alternative. And it’s really important that we be involved in that conversation in 2028. It’s important that we have somebody saying sensible things.”

Their search process is already underway. This summer, DSA is dispatching surveys to all 250 of its chapters, asking members to weigh who they want to back and why, and return their findings to national leadership by Sept. 15, details the group first shared with POLITICO. DSA expects to receive a stack of 20-page to 40-page dossiers from chapters coast to coast weighing in on who should carry the democratic socialist banner into 2028.The organization plans to hold national discussions, including with leaders like New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is 84 and not expected to run in 2028, with a formal vote expected at the group’s 2027 convention next year — though leaders say they could move faster if the primary timeline demands it.

“We’re going to be talking about millions of hours knocking doors for 2028 — so when we decide to really run somebody, people have to feel like they had a say,” Romer said. Mamdani-backed candidates swept three closely watched New York congressional primaries Tuesday, with Claire Valdez, Brad Lander and Darializa Avila Chevalier all defeating more establishment-aligned rivals — including two incumbents. It was a major show of force for Mamdani’s political operation, and fresh evidence of the left’s growing muscle heading into 2028. “They ask, ‘Who do you want to run in 2028?’ Then they ask, ‘When does the race for 2028 begin?’ It starts now. It starts on Tuesday,” Mamdani said at a Brooklyn rally last week.

The elephant in the room for the group, of course, is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Read more …

Jerry Nadler, George Conway et al, as in: The anti-Trump field.

“JFK’s grandson Jack Schlossberg fails to advance in election to replace Jerry Nadler in Manhattan district. “

• Mamdani-backed Candidates Sweep Democratic Primaries In NYC (Guardian)

Zohran Mamdani’s growing influence over the Democratic party was on show in New York City on Tuesday as three congressional candidates endorsed by New York’s democratic socialist mayor won closely watched primaries, while voters in Maryland, Utah and South Carolina cast ballots in primaries and runoffs.Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller who also ran for mayor last year before endorsing Mamdani, won his race comfortably, defeating the Democratic representative Dan Goldman.


Another Mamdani ally, Claire Valdez, a state lawmaker and former union organizer, defeated Antonio Reynoso, the preferred successor of retiring Democratic Representative Nydia Velázquez in New York’s seventh district, encompassing parts of Brooklyn and Queens. And in a stunning upset, the public defense investigator Darializa Avila Chevalier toppled Representative Adriano Espaillat, the powerful five-term incumbent who chairs the Congressional Hispanic caucus, in the state’s diverse 13th congressional district, which covers Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx.

“What a glorious time to be a New Yorker,” Lander declared at this election night party in Brooklyn, where he was joined by the mayor. Mamdani then appeared at a watch party for Valdez, where he told a jubilant crowd: “The old politics that got us into this crisis is not the politics that’s going to get us out of this crisis.” It was a clean sweep for Mamdani, who waded into the House primaries earlier this year, spending his political capital to boost three leftwing allies – a gamble that would test his popularity and his influence. With his slate of candidates all but certain to be elected to Congress in November, Mamdani has left his stamp on the state’s congressional delegation and expanded his ascendant progressive movement.

Elsewhere in the city, Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of John F Kennedy, was unsuccessful in his bid to revive the political legacy of the US’s most vaunted political family. In a House race that attracted outsized national attention, Schlossberg, 33, had hoped to parlay his huge social media presence and charisma into a Congressional seat, but he came up short in a crowded field of Democrats hoping to succeed the long-serving representative Jerry Nadler. Micah Lasher, a longtime New York politician and self-described “nerd”, won the primary in New York’s 12th district, a deep-blue district whose voters tend to identify as liberal rather than left-wing.

The race also included the prominent anti-Trump critic George Conway and state assembly-member Alex Bores, whose candidacy became the fulcrum for what observers described as an “AI civil war”. Lasher will be the heavy favorite to win the safely Democratic district in the November midterm election. Late on Tuesday night, Queens-born Donald Trump celebrated the defeat of both Goldman and Conway in a pair of social media posts. “Weak and pathetic Congressman Dan Goldman just lost, BIG! I guess people didn’t like him illegally targeting President TRUMP,” the president said of the congressman, who served as the lead counsel to House Democrats during the Trump’s first impeachment. Of Conway, whose ex-wife was a top adviser to the president during his first term, Trump gleefully predicted that he would “end up at about 5% of the vote in a rather weak field of young and aggressive Communists”.

Read more …

UK: No

US: Trump is doing it.

• Can Anyone Govern Britain — Or America? (Daniel McCcarthy)

As Britain gets ready for its seventh prime minister in just 10 years, it’s time to ask whether the parliamentary system itself is broken. That might explain not only why landslide election victories don’t translate into stable leadership in Britain but also why America’s Congress is so feckless. Is representative government an idea whose time has passed? In Europe as well as America, leftists prefer that judges and bureaucrats wield permanent power, as supposedly impartial experts who know best how to stop the weather from changing and how many genders there are.


Britain’s Labour party started out as a vehicle for the working class, in theory. It was closely connected to the country’s major industrial unions — but Britain in the 21st century has lost most of its hard industry, and Labour is now led by the same kind of socially left-wing, technocratic wonks that make up the “inner party” of the Democrats in this country. Brexit, passed by the British people in a referendum 10 years ago this week, proved Labour had lost the working class — the party elite favored remaining in the European Union, but working-class voters themselves cast their ballots for “leave.”

Unfortunately, the Conservative party’s elite also favored “remain” — Prime Minister David Cameron himself did, and losing the Brexit referendum compelled him to resign. Yet Cameron was followed by another Conservative PM, Theresa May, who had also been a remainer. It took a third Tory PM, Boris Johnson, to follow through on the voters’ mandate, but Johnson proved to be Britain’s Joe Biden where immigration was concerned, unleashing the “Boriswave” of mass migration, which flooded Britain with some 4 million newcomers from places like India, China, Pakistan and Nigeria.

Personal scandals forced Johnson from office before the scale of the damage his policies did came to light — but bond markets didn’t tolerate Johnson’s successor, Liz Truss, for long. That left Rishi Sunak to lead the Conservatives in 2024 to their first general election defeat in 14 years. In that time, Conservatives had given Britain same-sex marriage, bigger government, deeper debt, more green-energy regulation and record-high immigration. Labour more than doubled its number of seats in Parliament with Keir Starmer leading the party into the election, yet the landslide didn’t translate into any mandate for him.

His popularity soon slid and polls indicated the Reform party would win the next election, making Nigel Farage prime minister. Labour is now gambling its problems are personal, not political, and once Starmer has made way for a new PM — virtually certain to be Andy Burnham — its majority will be salvageable. Burnham is even more left-wing than Starmer: at least as far left on social issues and even more enthusiastic about nationalizing industry. Farage is wagering Starmer wasn’t the millstone around Labour’s neck — the party’s politics are.

But even as traditional parties of the left and right elsewhere in Europe have decayed in ways much like those of Britain’s Tories and Labour, new populist parties have struggled to win and maintain power. Farage has to contend not only with Labour and what’s left of the Conservatives, but also with a small but vociferous insurgency to his right, the Restore party. All this suggests Burnham or Farage can’t count on enjoying a tenure longer than Starmer’s or Sunak’s. Parliamentary elections haven’t produced a stable British government by anyone in the last 16 years. What are the odds the next election, which has to be held by August 2029, will do so? [..]

Read more …

“Trump is also asserting that Iran will allow IEAE inspectors in, something the Islamic Republic is also vehemently rejecting.”

• Brent Falls To Pre-War Levels (ZH)

Brent crude oil prices fell below $75 a barrel late yesterday, marking the first time the global benchmark has traded under that level since the outbreak of the Trump-initiated Iran conflict. The drop in crude prices could provide relief for consumers and businesses by easing pressure on fuel costs and inflation, a desired Washington outcome of the MoU signing – for which Trump has come under severe criticism from hawks at home. Speaking of escalating, we have another early morning Trump Truth Social statement, openly contradicting the consistent stated position of Tehran leaders.


Since the Switzerland high level talks led by Vance, there’s been a series of issues where Tehran and Washington have issued clearly contradictory statements. Trump says in the fresh statement that Iran informed the United States that there would be “NO TOLLS, NO INSURANCE COSTS, & NO OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND” imposed on vessels traveling through the strategic waterway. Trump as is typical criticized media reports that had suggested Iran could seek payments from ships using the route, calling such coverage “Fake News.” He added that if the information provided by Iran proved inaccurate, ongoing negotiations between the two sides would end “immediately.”

The president also denied reports that the United States had provided funds directly to Iran or released Iranian assets without conditions. “No money has been given to Iran, or released from their money to them, by the U.S.,” he said. However, Trump stated that Washington plans to make some Iranian funds available for agricultural purchases. According to the president, the money would be used to buy US farm products, including “Corn, Wheat, Soybeans, and more.” But Iranian leadership has vehemently rejected this narrative too.

“Food is desperately needed in Iran,” Trump said, adding that the purchases would be made “exclusively from the United States. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes, and any disruption or additional costs imposed on vessels passing through the channel could have significant implications for global trade and oil markets. It is officially ‘open’ in the wake of the MoU signing – but the next few days and weeks will be telling.Meanwhile, some new developments on the Hormuz opening front, and Qatar LNG:

Qatar’s prime minister said establishing a hotline between the US and Iran is essential to prevent rogue actors impeding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, as he predicted that the Gulf state would resume normal liquefied natural gas production “within a few weeks”. –FT. Trump is also asserting that Iran will allow IEAE inspectors in, something the Islamic Republic is also vehemently rejecting.

Read more …

Exactly like the old Lou Reed tune:

They’re never early, they’re always late.

First thing you learn is that you always gotta wait.

• ‘Customers Are Being Gouged’: Trump Tells DOJ To Look Into Gasoline Prices (ZH)

President Trump said on Wednesday that he had instructed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to open an investigation into oil companies over high gasoline prices. In a Truth Social post, Trump said that oil companies have not lowered their prices at the pump despite a recent decline in crude prices following the U.S.–Iran preliminary agreement. “Those prices are dropping like a rock! In other words, customers are being ‘gouged,’” he said. “Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I’m seeing!” Brent crude futures fell below $75 per barrel on Wednesday (back near pre-war levels), while U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures dropped to $72.29, amid the resumption of shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.


Bloomberg’s energy guru, Javier Blas, remarked after President Trump’s post: “US President Trump, all political theatre, has just discovered the refining (and marketing) margin.” The national average price for regular gasoline stood at $3.93 per gallon on June 23, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), down from $4.04 the previous week. The gas price was $4.53 per gallon a month ago. Of course, given the supply/refinery chain, it takes time (two weeks) for crude prices to ripple through to pump prices… AAA said it observed that gas prices remain above the levels before the conflict with Iran erupted in February.

The national average price for regular gas was $2.98 on Feb. 28, the day when the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran, triggering the war. “Getting prices back down to prewar levels will take longer because of the time it takes to resume shipping and production,” Marie Dodds, public affairs director for AAA Oregon/Idaho, said in a statement. As Aldgra Fredly reports for The Epoch Times, US and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding last week to end the war. Under the agreement, the Strait of Hormuz would be fully reopened, and Tehran would not procure or develop a nuclear weapon. The United States also agreed to waive sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told ABC News on June 21 that commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz had returned to normal levels, and that Americans should expect further declines in oil, gasoline, and other energy prices as traffic resumed. “Flows of oil and natural gas through the straits have already returned to normal, and they will continue that way whatever happens with the negotiations with the Iranians,” he said.

Arsenio Dominguez, secretary-general of the International Maritime Organization, said on June 23 that more than 11,000 seafarers stranded in the region due to war would be evacuated under a coordinated effort with Iran, Oman, other coastal states in the region, the United States, and the maritime industry following the U.S.–Iran preliminary deal. “We have secured the necessary safety guarantees and have thoroughly verified the conditions for safe navigation to support these operations,” Dominguez said in a statement. Iran had previously blocked traffic in the Strait of Hormuz—a critical waterway through which a significant share of global oil and gas shipments passes—in response to the U.S. and Israeli attacks on its nuclear and military sites.

Read more …

“Frontier AI models are anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.”

• An AI Cyber Apocalypse Is ‘Months, Not Years’ Away, Five Eyes Warns (Moran)

The Five Eyes intelligence group, comprising the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, is warning governments and corporations that AI models capable of launching devastating cyber attacks that could overwhelm their defenses are months, not years away. They are urging nations and companies to “act now” to improve cyber defenses.


This is a highly unusual warning from the normally circumspect intelligence group. The Five Eyes alliance typically operates with deep, classified sharing. They do not issue public joint statements lightly. When they align to release a unified message directly to the public and business leaders, it signals that the threat landscape has shifted in a way that regular, incremental IT adjustments cannot handle. In short, Five Eyes doesn’t do “hype.” When it releases a joint warning, it’s to alert governments and corporations to a real, imminent threat.

Usually, the group’s intelligence warnings paint a picture of cybersecurity risks across a multi-year window. This warning explicitly breaks from that convention, shifting the perspective from years to just “months.””While AI will help us improve cyber defense over time, it also accelerates the speed, scale, and sophistication of cyber threats,” the group notes. “Frontier AI models are anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. The timeline is not years; it is months.”

The writing has been on the wall for the last few months regarding an increase in urgency in the potency and capabilities of newer AI models. For instance, earlier this month, the U.S. government took the unusual step of ordering the AI startup Anthropic to suspend access to its powerful Mythos and Fable 5 models for foreign nationals. Policymakers expressed severe national security concerns that these specific models possess unprecedented capabilities to independently identify code vulnerabilities, potentially resulting in a “vulnerability tsunami” if misused by hostile actors.

From the Five Eyes Statement:

Cyber risk can no longer be treated as a purely technical issue. This is a core business risk and leadership responsibility. Boards and executives should ensure cyber resilience is in place and works under pressure. It is not enough to have controls. Leaders must be confident those controls will perform during a real incident. This requires reassessing long-standing trade-offs and using AI deliberately to strengthen defense – not just improve efficiency.

Core principles:
• Secure-by-design and secure-by-default must become standard practice not an aspiration.
• Resilience cannot depend on a single solution or technology.Defense in depth remains essential.
• As AI systems evolve, new and previously unknown vulnerabilities will emerge, including zero day vulnerabilities.
• Breaches will occur. Preparedness helps you contain them quickly and prevent escalation into major operational and financial crises.

Rather than targeting IT administrators with technical alerts, it directly holds boards and corporate executives accountable, framing AI-driven cyber risk as a fundamental threat to business continuity and trust. It demands that leaders move past treating cybersecurity as an IT standalone department and actively use AI defensively to outpace adversaries.”

“What it was saying is that in an age of AI, breaches will occur. It’s not a matter of if, but when, so it’s important to get prepared now,” Olivia Shen, director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the University of Sydney, told CNN. “Sophisticated businesses, usually your large corporations, they already invest in cybersecurity, and they’ll be better prepared,” Shen said. “The ones who are more exposed will be those small and medium-sized businesses who maybe have under invested so far, and they’ll basically be like sitting ducks.”

The speed with which these cyber threats are materializing is putting a damper on some efforts to place significant guardrails on AI. This month, several dozen cybersecurity researchers, AI entrepreneurs, and corporate executives signed an open letter urging the Trump administration to commit to “an open, scientific and transparent process of handling AI risk assessments” and said it was “essential” for security teams to “find and fix flaws in their own newly-written as well as decades of legacy code faster than our adversaries.”

“We know these technologies can be used for both defensive and offensive purposes, and we need a few more guardrails about how we can maximize the benefits for defensive cyber security, while gate keeping it away from potential cyber adversaries and scammers and cyber criminals,” Shen said. When the first major breaches happen, perhaps then we’ll get more serious about the speed with which AI development is outpacing our ability to adequately control it.

Read more …

Drones.. US lags behind.

• US To Set Up Testing Ranges Mimicking Ukraine Battlefield (RT)

The US will set up at least two domestic testing ranges that mimic battlefield conditions in Ukraine, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said on Tuesday. Driscoll said defense contractors will have access to the sites, where the Army and industry “can start to do much more aggressive testing,” according to DefenseScoop. The US has been struggling to keep pace with rapidly evolving drone technology used extensively by both Russia and Ukraine. “You can have a kind of electronic warfare and all of the contested environment created, and you can have drone manufacturers and counter-drone tool-builders engaging together,” Driscoll told reporters at an Army-hosted industry event.


“Then, we also want soldiers to be able to go there so that they can strengthen their skills and work hand-in-hand with developers,” he added. According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon is actively seeking companies capable of producing 300,000 low-cost kamikaze drones and is prepared to spend $54.6 billion next year on an expanded drone warfare program. The widespread use of surveillance and attack drones in the Ukraine conflict has created vast ‘kill zones’ along the front line, with both sides using UAVs to repel mechanized assaults and carry out strikes deep inside enemy territory. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov said earlier this month that domestic companies now have the capacity to produce more than 15,000 FPV drones per day, up from around 15,000 per month in 2023.

Moscow has warned that Western supplies of drone technology and other weapons to Kiev make NATO a de facto participant in the conflict and risk further escalation. Ukraine frequently uses drones to strike civilian targets. Last month, UAVs destroyed a college dormitory in Starobelsk, Russia, killing 21 students. On June 3, a Ukrainian drone struck a commuter bus in Enakievo, killing eight passengers. Two weeks later, a drone hit a bus carrying a youth football team from Belarus near the Russian village of Nelzhichi, killing a pregnant woman and injuring eight people, including six children.

Read more …

“Washington wants to expand weapons production after reportedly depleting key stockpiles in the Iran war and Ukraine”..

• US Carmakers Could Produce Missiles – Trump (RT)

US automakers could begin producing missiles and other weapons as Washington moves to expand military output and replenish its arsenals, President Donald Trump has said. Speaking to reporters at the White House on Monday, Trump said car companies with spare factory capacity are discussing deals to manufacture weapons, including Patriot air-defense missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles. ”They’re dealing with General Motors. They’re dealing with Ford,” Trump said. “I know General Motors is all excited about building weapons now.”


He added that some plants belonging to the two carmakers are expected to be converted to military production, describing the shift as part of a “big strong economic push” to produce arms. His remarks come after the Wall Street Journal reported in April that the Pentagon had approached General Motors, Ford, GE Aerospace, and Oshkosh about retooling civilian factories to produce munitions and other military equipment. The talks were reportedly part of an effort to put US industry on what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has called a “wartime footing,” echoing the World War II-era conversion of Detroit factories to military production.

The push comes amid mounting concern over the state of US weapons stockpiles after years of arms deliveries to Ukraine under former President Joe Biden and heavy missile use during the recent US-Israeli war against Iran. US media and think-tanks have warned that Washington burned through large quantities of critical munitions during the Iran campaign, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, Patriot interceptors, THAAD missiles, and other advanced systems.

Reuters has also reported that depleted inventories could delay US arms deliveries to fellow NATO members. Trump has downplayed shortage concerns, saying the US has “quite a few” missiles but wants to keep larger reserves. His administration has requested a record military budget of around $1.5 trillion for the 2027 fiscal year, with much of the increase expected to go towards replenishing stockpiles and expanding production.

Read more …

“..psychology as a field is a tool of white power..”

• Journal Under Fire for Retracting Article Challenging Claims of Racism (Turley)

We have previously discussed academic journals canceling publications that challenge the orthodox views of mainstream scholars. The latest such example can be found in the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists, which pulled the 2025 article of Arna Mitchell who questioned claims that psychology as a field is a tool of white power. The editors reportedly declared that such conclusions are inconsistent with the publication’s values.


Dr. Kumari Valentine, a psychologist and former editor of the journal, wrote an article raising concerns over the retraction: The reason given for the removal was not research fraud, plagiarism, ethical misconduct, or factual error. Rather, the NZCCP Council determined that retaining the article was inconsistent with the values of the College and could perpetuate harm to Maori. The article, He Wero Ano: Don’t Just Tell Me, Show Me How Science and Psychology Are Racist in New Zealand, took issue with the broad, unsubstantiated claims of systemic racism in psychology across all levels of the discipline, including that science itself is a social construct of white Europeans and white power.

Mitchell, a Maori woman herself, also took issue with the view that tribal ways of knowing should be given equal weight to scientific ways of knowing in the training and practice of psychologists in New Zealand. One would think that such a viewpoint, particularly from a Maori woman, would, at a minimum, be welcomed as a provocative and interesting perspective. However, various readers were less interested in reading it or even responding to it. They campaigned to cancel it.

Some did respond, saying they felt the critique was based on a misunderstanding of Kaupapa Maori psychology. That should also be a welcome perspective in allowing a free exchange of viewpoints on the subject. Some faculty have cried foul, calling the cancellation raw censorship. This is reminiscent of the controversy at the Emory Law Journal and the firing of an editor at JAMA. These controversies are a reflection of the viewpoint intolerance that has taken hold of much of academia, supporting groups, and journals.

Read more …

Nice pair.

• Investigation Launched Into Von der Leyen Over Secret Chat With Zelensky (TASS)

European Ombudsman Teresa Anjinho has launched an investigation into European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over a secret chat involving German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Vladimir Zelensky, the Berliner Zeitung newspaper reported. Anjinho notified the European Commission of the investigation last week. She is examining whether the EC violated transparency rules by refusing to grant the Dutch organization Follow the Money (FTM) access to the correspondence.


The European Commission justified its refusal by stating that publishing the chat data could “complicate the international relations of the European Union (and its member states) with third countries.” “I have decided to launch a probe into the European Commission’s actions regarding the applicant’s request in accordance with EU regulations concerning public access to documents,” Anjinho wrote to the FTM organization. She expects to meet with EC representatives by mid-July.

Read more …

Places are hot that were not built for it. 40 people drowned in France alone in a few days.

• Sweltering Heat As Europe Heatwave Spreads (BBC)

France is bracing for another day of exceptionally hot weather, with more than half the country remaining under a red heat alert on Wednesday. Tens of thousands of homes have been left without power in western Brittany, while a major wildfire was brought under control overnight in the Maine-et-Loire region. It comes after the country experienced its hottest June day since records began on Tuesday, with an average temperature of 29.8C (85.54F) recorded.


The heatwave is expected to spread to other parts of western Europe on Wednesday, with an orange alert for dangerous weather in place for parts of the Netherlands. Temperatures are expected to peak in the Netherlands and Belgium on Friday, while Germany is expected to see the mercury rise to 40C (104F) over the weekend. The heatwave is also expected to spread to eastern Europe over the next few days, with severe heat warnings issued for countries including Poland, Croatia and Hungary for later in the week.

So far, France, Spain and Italy have been hardest hit by the heatwave. Forty people have drowned in heatwave-related incidents in France since last Thursday, according to the prime minister.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/niccruzpatane/status/2069567930308624607?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 24 2026

Jun 242026
 
 June 24, 2026  Posted by at 9:50 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  26 Responses »


Giambologna Colossus of the Apennines 1579-80 (35ft tall)


• Trump Insists Iran Agreed to ‘Highest Level’ of Nuclear Inspections (ZH)
• So a ‘Jellyfish’ Drone Swarm Might Have Shot Down Our F-15 Over Iran (Green)
• Starmer Turned UK Into ‘Authoritarian Hellhole’ – George Galloway (RT)
• Starmer’s Gone, But UK’s Right May Have Little To Cheer About (RMX)
• There’s A Shakespearean Tone To Current Developments (ZH)
< • So, How’s Spain’s Mass Amnesty Working Out? (Aaron Hanscom) /td>
• AfD’s Alice Weidel Demands Ukraine Pay Reparations To Germany (Korybko)
• Smart or Intelligent (CTH)
• AI ‘Months Away’ From Taking Down Governments – 5 Eyes Intel Group (RT)
• Justice Jackson’s Curious Call to Overturn Bruen (Turley)
• Acting DNI Pulte Removes 51 from Agency (CTH)
• The Media Is Still Trying to Smear Tesla (Margolis)
• Deadly Montreal Shooter Hated Capitalism, Women, White Men, and Jews (Salgado)

 


 

https://twitter.com/maggiewise111/status/2069164671114875120?s=20 https://twitter.com/warDaniel47/status/2069156702872609230?s=20 https://twitter.com/QuantumGuard17/status/2069155203358531893?s=20 https://twitter.com/ConstitustionX/status/2069152887578722549?s=20 https://twitter.com/GOP_is_Gutless/status/2069034108278243491?s=20 https://twitter.com/MCarbonaraFL/status/2069403989624398334?s=20

 


 

 


 


Trump adapts to Iranian tactics by just making statements no matter what they are, just like they do..

NOTE: according to Tehran, the US gives in on every single issue. Why would it?

Tehran just shouts things .. and far too many in the west take their word for it.

• Trump Insists Iran Agreed to ‘Highest Level’ of Nuclear Inspections (ZH)

Despite Washington pressure and warnings, it appears Oman is still on board with cooperating with Iran to extract Hormuz Strait transit fees, or tolls, over and against repeat objections from the White House.Alongside nuclear inspectors, this remains a top disputed issue, despite the MoD framework having been signed. But the two sides are likely to leave the details to be hashed out during the 60-day ‘technical negotiations’.


With a number of issues still up in the air, amid claims and counter-claims coming after Switzerland – from nuclear inspectors accessing Iran to how Tehran is able to use its soon to be unfrozen funds – President Trump heightens the drama by issuing a Tuesday morning Truth Social message regarding the negotiations Trump insists that Iran has agreed to the “highest level” of nuclear inspections, calling it a guarantee of “Nuclear Honesty” and stressing that there would have been “no further negotiations” without such a commitment. He also says the US will allow the Strait of Hormuz to remain “OPEN” and is not pursuing a naval blockade, though military assets remain in place if conditions change.

According to Trump, any sanctions relief or released Iranian funds will be held in US-controlled escrow and can only be used to purchase food and medical supplies from the United States, including “Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans from our great American Farmers.”Trump now characterizes the situation in Iran as a “humanitarian crisis” and concluded that “Talks are going well!!”.

Iran Touts $12BN in Frozen Assets to Be Released, Will Use How it Pleases

Among the biggest latest developments in the immediate wake of the Switzerland meeting is that Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has announced an agreement has been reached for the United States to release $12 billion in frozen Iranian assets. It also comes after the US Treasury Department announced temporary sanctions relief, namely freeing up Iranian oil and petrochemical sales until August 1st. Concerning the frozen asset partial release, Tehran is now emphasizing that it alone will decide how the funds will be used.

But this may be another area where the headlines and declarations are too far out front, given Washington has sought to impose some caveats which likely remain unacceptable to the Iranians side. For example Vice President JD Vance made clear his stance Monday that Iranian assets had not yet been unfrozen as part of the deal, describing that if there were, they must be limited in use and implementation – to purchase US agricultural goods. He has emphasized – perhaps wishing to address American domestic criticisms – that the funds would not be used to support terrorism.

Read more …

A swarm of 1,000 small ones, the size of a fingernail? Why not?10,000?!

• So a ‘Jellyfish’ Drone Swarm Might Have Shot Down Our F-15 Over Iran (Green)

“Multiple drones interconnected and moving as one with smaller drones below the bigger drones like legs,” shot down a U.S. Air Force F-15E strike fighter over Iran in April, according to a CNN source familiar with the apparently bizarre shootdown. “Real alien s***,” they called it. As you may recall, both the pilot and the backseat weapons systems officer ejected safely, but the WSO’s rescue 36 hours later in hostile territory was the stuff of Hollywood movies. But it wasn’t until today that we learned the movie looked more like Independence Day than Behind Enemy Lines.


A second source confirmed the almost unbelievable claim, telling CNN that the downed pilot described witnessing a “minefield of drones” in the air. Exactly how the drones either attacked the F-15E Strike Eagle or enabled an attack by ground forces is either not yet understood, or at least not revealed. “US intelligence officials disagreed on how to interpret what the F-15 pilot described, and whether the pilot could recount the incident clearly,” according to CNN, and a concussion he reportedly suffered during the crash could have affected his memory. But things get weirder still.

While the pilot’s name still hasn’t been released, he’s believed to be one of the same Eagle pilots accidentally shot down by Kuwait in a friendly fire incident earlier in Operation Epic Fury. According to the Washington Examiner, the unnamed pilot is “believed to be the first fixed-wing Air Force pilot since the Vietnam War era to survive being shot down twice in the same conflict.”He’s either extraordinarily lucky or extraordinarily unlucky. Or maybe both. Take your pick. Let’s get back to that alleged drone swarm.

“Had he witnessed a mature capability that US intelligence wasn’t aware of?” CNN’s Zachary Cohen and Katie Bo Lillis asked. “A beta test? A mirage in the desert?” At least for the sake of argument, let’s dismiss the suggestion that the pilot’s recollection — at least as reported by CNN’s sources — was any kind of mirage or a concussion-related hallucination. Losing an F-15E Strike Eagle is serious business, and it deserves to be treated seriously. Also, whatever caused that shootdown required one of the biggest and most complicated rescue missions in history.

So we need answers, not dismissals. My initial gut reaction — and it’s nothing more than that, so appraise accordingly — is that China used Operation Epic Fury to test at least one of its new systems. There are reports, also unconfirmed, that Tehran used or attempted to use Chinese-made anti-ship missiles on U.S. Navy targets during the conflict, and I’d almost be surprised if they hadn’t.

If Beijing also possesses some sort of drone-swarm antiaircraft capability, Epic Fury would have been a sweet opportunity to put it to a real-world test. Performing that test well inside Iranian territory also makes sense, given that any survivors — i.e., witnesses — would be less likely to live long enough to get the word out. But we’re unbelievably good at getting our people out, as I detailed back in April. Another option is that Tehran’s homegrown drone technology is already advanced enough to destroy American fighters. If that’s the case, the Pentagon needs to recalibrate how best to handle any future conflict not just with Iran, but with any country Iran might sell to. As of today, we just don’t know.

Read more …

“The British people are celebrating the prime minister’s resignation, the former MP has told RT..”

• Starmer Turned UK Into ‘Authoritarian Hellhole’ – George Galloway (RT)

Outgoing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has turned the UK into an “authoritarian hellhole,” with more people being jailed and arrested for social media posts than in any other country in the world, former MP George Galloway has told RT. Starmer announced on Monday that he would step down as prime minister and Labour Party leader by September, citing a widespread internal revolt against his leadership. Speaking to RT’s Rick Sanchez, Galloway, who was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 for his vocal opposition to the Iraq War, welcomed the move.


“I danced on his political grave,” he said. “He has turned the United Kingdom into an authoritarian hellhole.” Galloway argued that Starmer, who assumed office in July 2024, had made the UK subservient to the interests of Israel, Ukraine and the EU. The British people were “rejoicing” at his departure, Galloway said, suggesting that Starmer’s plunging approval ratings had made him a liability for Labour. Only 18% of Britons viewed him favorably in mid-June, according to YouGov.

“He’s a creature of the deep state,” Galloway said, referring to Starmer’s work as Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service prior to his election to Parliament in 2015. He added that Starmer had “a whole string of deep-state preoccupations,” citing what he described as “the injustice to Julian Assange” and the decision not to prosecute BBC presenter and serial sex offender Jimmy Savile.“That doesn’t mean the next fellow will be better,” Galloway said.

Andy Burnham, the newly sworn-in MP for Makerfield, is widely seen as the frontrunner to become the next prime minister. “It’ll be a coronation… this is a democratic outrage,” Galloway said. In 2024, Starmer became the UK’s first Labour prime minister since 2010 and the sixth person to hold the office in the span of a decade. He decided to leave office after more than 100 Labour MPs urged him to step down and several key ministers resigned from his government.

Read more …

The Right went before the Left did.

Now, Farage is in the waiting room.

Burnham will first continue on the broken path.

Burn, baby., burn!

• Starmer’s Gone, But UK’s Right May Have Little To Cheer About (RMX)

The deeply unpopular British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, announced his resignation on Monday morning, but despite his upcoming departure, the right may have little to cheer about. During a speech outside Downing Street, Starmer announced he was stepping down after holding office since July 7, 2024. In that election, his Labour Party won 412 seats, securing a comfortable majority and decimating the Tories, who had governed Britain since 2010.


Starmer revealed on the morning of Monday, June 22, that he had already spoken with King Charles III to inform him of his decision. The Labour Party’s National Executive Committee will now develop a timetable for the election of a new leader, who will also become Prime Minister. He stressed that this process should be completed by the end of the summer holidays. Until then, Starmer will remain at the helm of the British government. According to Reuters, the main favorite to replace Starmer is the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, who won a seat in the House of Commons during the Makerfield constituency by-election in northwest England on June 18, defeating Nigel Farage’s party.

The right now has a challenger
Burnham may pose a grave challenge to Restore Britain and Reform UK, the two main right-wing parties running against the British left. Under Starmer, multiple polls predicted a strong majority for Reform UK, with some even forecasting a blowout election victory. However, the rise of Restore Britain had already siphoned off a number of voters from Reform UK, narrowing Farage’s lead.

Now, with Starmer gone, some polls show Reform UK barely leading Labour in a general election. A new poll from Politico shows Farage winning 27 percent of the vote versus 20 percent for Labour under Starmer’s current numbers – but when tested against Burnham, Labour’s chances receive a significant boost. Some within Labour even describe Burnham as a “Reform Slayer,” as he polls better against Farage than anyone else in the party.

Nevertheless, the Politico article also describes an uphill battle for Burnham, given how far Labour has fallen out of favour with British voters during Starmer’s rule. Notably, Burnham is described as more left-wing than Starmer, who is categorized as a “centrist.” Although the Tories are still seen as a formidable election force, they have long since discarded any semblance of right-wing politics. Nevertheless, they are also siphoning voters away from both Restore Britain and Reform UK, retaining voters who might lean personally to the right but still vote Conservative out of habit.

The combined effect of vote-splitting on the right and Burnham leading Labour could deliver a shock upset in favor of Labour, ending Farage’s dream of winning the office of prime minister. British commentators point out that Starmer’s position has been weakening for months. More than 100 Labour MPs – around a quarter of the parliamentary party in the House of Commons – had publicly stated they wanted the prime minister to resign or set a timetable for his departure. Labour Party members pointed to a total loss of trust in the head of government and his leadership abilities. The government had recently been rocked by a number of high-profile resignations, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Defence Secretary John Healey.

Polling also showed that Labour members overwhelmingly wanted Burnham, nicknamed the “King of the North” after winning three consecutive mayoral terms. He is currently Labour’s most popular politician. His recent victory in the Makerfield seat also bodes poorly for Reform UK and Restore Britain; the constituency is predominantly white and working-class, representing the exact demographic that these two right-wing parties are seeking to win over from Labour.

Read more …

“[..] .. tragically, not one of his comedies..”

“If you can look into the seeds of time; And say which grain will grow and which will not.”

• There’s A Shakespearean Tone To Current Developments (ZH)

There’s a Shakespearean tone to current developments: tragically, not one of his comedies. The US has introduced a temporary waiver (until August 21) for Iranian oil sales that undoes 40 years of sanctions. Iran can sell what it likes to who it likes, including the US, and receive US dollars. Two months isn’t enough time to sell much, but if the White House wants to show Iran it’s serious about offering new opportunities that’s been achieved. Equally, Iran says an agreement has been reached to release $12bn in frozen funds, but disputes Trump’s claim it will buy food exclusively from the US with it.


More importantly, VP Vance said Iran has agreed to nuclear inspections from the IAEA, a huge concession. However, Iran responded that’s not the case and it didn’t negotiate nuclear matters so far in Switzerland. On Hormuz, the Iranian view remains it will manage the strait and charge for passage within months: Trump’s is the polar opposite. That’s as transits seem to be running at around a quarter to a third of normal levels, at best. Indeed, the squeeze in bunker fuel is still evident in rising ocean carrier freight rates.

On Lebanon, a new deconfliction mechanism is floated that excludes Israel, as PM Netanyahu, Defence Minister Katz, and IDF head Zamir reiterated a pledge to “continue to act decisively” and hold their security zone there, including the 1km-long, 25-metre deep underground Hezbollah missile and drone base in Ali Taher ridge, evidence of how much Iran has ploughed into its proxy. Separately, the Israeli and Lebanese governments will meet in Washington to discuss normalization and elusive Hezbollah disarmament; and in the background, Syria has signaled that, after Trump’s suggestion, it will only engage Hezbollah if Lebanon requests it.

The Saudi paper Asharq Al-Awsat reports Hamas held a top-secret meeting with French officials to discuss a possible return to ‘1967 borders’, which they’ve floated before as a temporary truce, that could unlock Trump’s Board of Peace and ‘Gaza-Lago’ redevelopment plans. Yet the Jerusalem Post reports new Mossad boss Gofman is taking the agency “by storm” and is ramping up plans to topple the Islamic regime. So, what’s it to be in the Middle East, beyond the current calm?

“Something wicked this way comes” UK PM Starmer resigned, as former Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham sealed his doom by coming to high Done-inane, swearing in as an MP in Westminster after not being one a week ago. The UK press is abuzz with discussions of who will be in his cabinet, like what’s-his-face and that-one-from-a-few-years-ago. There’s a natural market focus on who’ll be the Thane of Cawdor Chancellor: Burnham needs to reassure Gilts that fiscal rules will be adhered to and his leftwing backbenchers that he’s offering something new enough that his popularity won’t follow the same rapid downwards trajectory as that of Starmer, Sunak, Truss, Johnson, and May.

One immediate impact is that the July EU-UK summit has been postponed: nobody knows what Burnham’s view re: the EU will be, but he has previously backed rejoining. “If you can look into the seeds of time; And say which grain will grow and which will not.” In Asia, India launched three warships as a show of force to China in the Indian Ocean, as the US Department of War renamed its Indo-Pacific Command back to the Pacific Command, signalling a de-prioritisation of the area matching Europe re: NATO and the Middle East re: Iran and Israel. In East Asia, where the US is outsourcing its Taiwan-focused efforts to Japan and the Philippines, China says it warned off multiple Japanese ‘provocations’ during its recent aircraft carrier drills.

Read more …

This doesn’t concern one country; it’s an entire continent with open borders.

• So, How’s Spain’s Mass Amnesty Working Out? (Aaron Hanscom)

Half a million. That’s the number that made headlines in April when Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s Socialist government approved plans to grant legal status to 500,000 illegal migrants. But a leaked police report warned that the true number could be much higher, estimating that between 750,000 and 1 million illegal migrants living in Spain could apply for amnesty, in addition to 250,000 to 350,000 asylum seekers. The report described the amnesty plan’s “very intense media impact, especially in Latin America” and warned of a “highly relevant pull factor,” which we will return to in a moment.


The conservative Popular Party (PP) also disputed the government’s estimates, saying the true number could be double and calling the plan an “outrage.” Sanchez, whom The Economist has called the leader of Europe’s anti-Trump resistance, anticipating such criticism, wrote in a New York Times op-ed in January that “MAGA-style leaders may say that our country can’t handle taking in so many migrants — that this is a suicidal move, the desperate act of a collapsing country.”

Well, the numbers are starting to come in and, just as Joe Biden’s weak border enforcement in the U.S. created a “pull factor” that led to average monthly border crossings of over 100,000, Sanchez’s policies are having a similar magnet effect, far exceeding his government’s estimates.

Even though the asylum application window remains open until June 30, 900,000 applications have already been submitted, a record number for Spain. The European Conservative reports that “approximately 350,000 additional applications have been submitted since the start of June, a surge that has caught authorities off guard.” The publication notes that these numbers are much higher than the last time mass amnesty was tried in Spain, in 2005 under the Socialist government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who these days spends his time in court as the subject of a graft probe. Zapatero’s program granted 576,000 residence permits from 691,000 applications received.

Sanchez, of course, looks at every new immigrant as a potential future voter who won’t care about the mind-boggling corruption within his Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE). As increasing numbers of Spaniards take to the streets to demand the prime minister’s resignation, Muslim migrants are among his most loyal supporters. In the video below, we meet a Muslim store owner a minute in, with a poster of Sanchez on his shop wall, who says Muslims are “100%” going to vote for the prime minister if they become citizens. Why? Because he “stands with Iran and Palestine.” Indeed he does.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a poster of Santiago Abascal, the leader of the rising populist/conservative Vox party, in any Muslim-owned shops in Spain. Abascal, who has said that it is “inhumane to tell all of Africa and all of America that they can fit into Spain,” warned in April that mass amnesty will increase crime in the streets of Spain and accelerate the country’s housing and public healthcare crises.

And it’s not just Spanish politicians who are criticizing Sanchez’s policies. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni told Sanchez in a closed-door meeting in Brussels last week that his amnesty plan negatively affects all EU countries. It was at that EU leaders’ meeting in Brussels that Sanchez opposed, along with French President Emmanuel Macron, plans for offshore migrant deportation hubs. Politico reports:

The disagreement comes days after the EU approved legislation allowing members to establish deportation hubs in third countries as part of a push to ensure failed asylum-seekers leave the bloc. While it’s still unclear how many capitals could take advantage of the rule change, 19 of the EU 27 signed up to a joint Danish-Italian letter, first reported by POLITICO, calling for swift action on deportations. “Countries are now working … to implement the new possibilities, including hubs in third countries. We will personally lead the way to make sure our visions are brought to life,” the letter circulated Friday morning reads.

Spain opposes EU plans for offshore deportation hubs, arguing they raise legal and humanitarian concerns, while other countries including Italy and Denmark view the hubs as a key tool to deter irregular migration and speed up removals. What Sanchez calls a humanitarian immigration policy, an increasing number of European politicians, including Abascal and Meloni, see as an invitation to invasion. Watch the video below and decide for yourself:

Read more …

She’s got it wrong. On the one thing Ukraine didn’t do.

• AfD’s Alice Weidel Demands Ukraine Pay Reparations To Germany (Korybko)

Europeans and especially Germans have borne enormous costs to perpetuate the Ukrainian Conflict while receiving absolutely nothing of tangible benefit in return. AfD co-leader Alice Weidel responded to Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s proposal to grant Ukraine associate membership in the EU, which was analyzed here and here, by declaring that “We need to know how this state-terrorist act against the most important infrastructure we had, namely the Nord Stream pipelines, came about and what role Ukraine played in it. The flow of payments should actually be moving in the opposite direction.”


She then added that, “Ukraine must pay reparations to the Federal Republic of Germany, because we have suffered enormous damage – and so has Europe as a whole – from the loss of cheap Russian fossil fuels.” Weidel made a solid point about the economic damage that the Ukrainian Conflict has caused to Europe, even independently of the Nord Stream terrorist attack, which she implied was committed by Ukraine like Berlin suggested but which the famous Seymer Hersh cited sources to blame on the US.

To elaborate a bit more on the background of Berlin’s innuendo, it sought the extradition from Poland last year of a Ukrainian suspect but was rebuffed by the judge for the reasons explained here, which lent credence in a lot of the public’s mind to the claim of Ukrainian culpability. Nevertheless, that narrative was already counteracted here, here, and here over the years long before the extradition request was made and rejected, but Weidel, many Germans, and a lot of folks across the West in fact still believe it.

In any case, having clarified the context of her implied accusation against Ukraine and circling back to her reparations demand, the EU spent hundreds of billions of dollars on aid for Ukraine and its refugees. When calculating the higher cost of fuel since then, including that which it still purchases from Russia, the total credibly approaches $1 trillion and might even surpass it by some estimates. The most that the EU might receive in exchange is arms and reconstruction contracts for only a handful of companies.

That nowhere near justifies the enormous costs that the EU has paid to perpetuate the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, which highlights the ideological motives behind this policy. The liberal-globalists that rule the bloc are hellbent on inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia through NATO-backed Ukraine, to which end no cost is too high to pay, especially since it’s average Europeans and not them that are paying it. This cynical policy is already backfiring in Germany by turbocharging the AfD’s rise.

It’s now the most popular party in the country by far and its appeal continues to grow since it’s one of the few forces apart from the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance that’s speaking truth to power about this conflict and its crushing economic consequences for Europeans. Germany in particular has been hit exceptionally hard with growth crawling to a halt and many suspecting that the bloc’s largest economy is actually already in a recession that might soon be confirmed and then spread throughout the EU.

Weidel knows very well that Ukraine will never pay reparations to Germany and that even the hypothetical cession of its key industries to her country wouldn’t come anywhere near compensating the costs that Germans have already paid. Her rhetoric was thus meant to draw attention to these same costs. The more that Germans dwell upon them and realize that their country received nothing of tangible benefit in return, the more likely they are to support the AfD in a bid to bring about real change.

Read more …

“..once we break our historic reference connecting ‘intelligence’ and the generalized term ‘smart’, we can properly address the question you present.”

• Smart or Intelligent (CTH)

I previously saw an interesting discussion with NVIDEA Jensen Haung where in the context of AI he was asked: who is the smartest person you ever met? Jensen Haung paused for quite a few moments thinking about the question before he answered. Haung then redefined the word “smart.” ‘Smart’ is a word we have historically used in reference to ‘intelligence’. If a person was intelligent, we say that person is smart. However, in this era of AI at your fingertips, we must break this connection.Intelligence, the assembly of knowledge about a particular matter of discussion, is no longer limited to educational or real-life training or study by people who focus intensely on subject material.


All of the knowing about a system, any system, process, history or discussion topic is now available almost instantly to anyone in this era of artificial intelligence. The NVIDEA CEO then continued, therefore, once we break our historic reference connecting ‘intelligence’ and the generalized term ‘smart’, we can properly address the question you present. Who is the smart man? Or, in the context of the originating question, “who is the smartest person?”

With this baseline established, Jensen Haung then outlined the traits of the smartest person. The smartest person is not the person with the greatest knowledge; the smart individual is the person who can tune into the frequency of the universal moment, look at the human reality of what is factually taking place that has not yet become an input into the AI capture record, and then predict the material outcome – the destination of knowledge that has not yet arrived.

Essentially, Haung explains the smart person is alone, tuning themselves into the vibration that is the consequence of human activity, financial interests, geopolitical movement, social transformation, economic shifts and cultural modifications. Then, positioning their interests at the place in the future where they predict all the activity will arrive. The accuracy of prediction, or predictive positioning, then determines the scale of smart. The more accurate a person is under this perspective, the smarter they are. I agree with this perspective. All of human knowledge is now being assembled into AI databases for exploration by anyone with a keen interest or stake in the subject matter.

Knowledge is no longer the valuation of ‘smart.’ The ability to predict the next step, phase or moment is the smart attribute. With this context, we can now look back over the past few decades, not looking for the most intelligent voice, but rather looking at the accuracy of current position, contrast with the outline from the voices who make the predictions. This interview about the ramifications of cultural change in Europe was given in 2010, sixteen years ago, centered on a book written by Mark Steyn and the context within the questioning is looking forward over a period of about 20 years.

Remember, this is 2010, written before the “arab spring, long before Brexit, well before President Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda as policy and before the U.K churned through seven prime ministers’ in a decade. Remarkably, Steyn discusses/predicts what would happen if Islam tried to reform; if the U.S. pulled NATO resources out of Germany; if the U.K doesn’t radically alter direction and much more. Watch the discussion or put the interview on play while listening to it in the background as you go about your tasks. Remind yourself at moments throughout the roughly 30 minutes, that the interview took place fifteen years ago.

Mark Steyn, a writer, political commentator, and friend of the Treehouse outlines his 2010 prediction about the destination of the Western world during a discussion with Peter Robinson.

Read more …

Next up, some AI model will build a government.

“Five Eyes cyber agencies have warned that frontier models could soon transform offensive hacking capabilities.”

• AI ‘Months Away’ From Taking Down Governments – 5 Eyes Intel Group (RT)

Advanced artificial intelligence models could soon give hackers the ability to cripple governments, businesses, and critical systems, cyber agencies from the Five Eyes intelligence group have warned. In a rare joint statement published on Monday, cyber security leaders from Australia, the US, the UK, Canada, and New Zealand said frontier AI models are developing faster than expected and are “anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.”


“The timeline is not years, it is months,” the agencies said, adding that “cyber risk can no longer be treated as a purely technical issue. This is a core business risk and leadership responsibility.” The statement said AI will help improve cyber defense over time, but is also lowering the barrier for malicious actors, increasing the speed and complexity of attacks, while shrinking the window between vulnerability discovery and exploitation. The agencies urged organizations to strengthen their digital defenses, update outdated software more quickly, limit access to sensitive systems, and prepare for cyberattacks before they happen.

While the Five Eyes statement did not name any single model or company, the recent debate over AI security has centered on US developer Anthropic, which has faced scrutiny over its latest and most advanced systems. Earlier this year, the company said one of its flagship models, Mythos, was too powerful to be released to the general public and limited access to a small group of trusted organizations. The company later introduced Fable 5, a more restricted version of the technology, but both models were subsequently taken offline after the US government ordered that foreign citizens be barred from using them, citing national security concerns.

The developments come amid broader warnings from researchers, technology leaders, and security officials that AI capabilities are advancing faster than governments and institutions can adapt. Experts have increasingly cautioned that systems designed to boost productivity and strengthen cyber defenses could also be used to automate attacks, lower barriers for malicious actors, and amplify the impact of small groups.

Read more …

Kentaji Brown Jackson is the Biden admin’s one woman wrecking crew in the Supreme Court. You can pack the court, and/or you can wreck it from within.

• Justice Jackson’s Curious Call to Overturn Bruen (Turley)

Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from both her conservative and liberal colleagues. However, for critics of some of these decisions, Justice Jackson continues to publish opinions that are not just, as she describes it, cathartic but chilling. Worse yet, the latest judicial jump scare was shared by her colleague, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion in United States v. Hemani.


At issue in the case was an effort to prosecute Ali Hemani for recreational use of marijuana, a prosecution that threatened up to 15 years and to strip him of his gun rights under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that the provision was not “consistent with the Second Amendment.” Gorsuch noted that Hemani was not alleged to be a drug addict or to have used his guns in a menacing manner. Gorsuch wrote that the “historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.”

However, Jackson used the concurrence to argue for overturning NYSRPA v. Bruen, a case critical to laying the foundation for interpreting the Second Amendment based on historical precedent. Jackson lashed out at the”‘history and tradition’ metric” and called for the Court to “revisit” the case. Declaring Bruen “unworkable,” Jackson called for the restoration of the “means-end scrutiny—the approach courts applied before we adopted Bruen’s ‘history and tradition’ metric—offers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations.”

The reason for undoing Bruen? According to Jackson, “it imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions,’ and ‘applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems.’” Justice Jackson added that “Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.”

The burden of actually seeking to understand the intended meaning of a constitutional provision is certainly greater than the more free-style approach of Jackson who focused on how to “resolve contemporary problems” under a living Constitution. However, to suggest that her outcome-determinative approach is less inconsistent and arbitrary is only true when you control the Court with justices who have like-minded “solutions” for contemporary problems.That is precisely what many Democrats have in mind as they openly pledge to pack the Court with an insistent liberal majority if they can retake power.

Moreover, Jackson is often cited as the model of the left, a justice who is unburdened by the language and history of constitutional provisions. Just last week, liberal Wisconsin State Supreme Court justices heralded Jackson’s approach in arguing for the restoration of race-based gerrymandering. The state jurists lamented not being able to interpret the Constitution to address the “harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised,” including the “preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”

These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson. It is not simply the desire to immediately overturn prior cases but to establish a largely untethered jurisprudence driven by judicial fiat and impulse. It is certainly an easier way to write opinions and would clear the way for a stated agenda on the left to maintain power indefinitely. Before voters “unburden” these jurists, they need to seriously consider the costs of eviscerating an institution that has been vital in maintaining this Republic for the last 250 years.

Read more …

“Six Fired and 45 “sent back to their home agencies” ..

I must say I wonder why Tulsi didn’t do the removing while she was there.

• Acting DNI Pulte Removes 51 from Agency (CTH)

CBS is reporting on events within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. As CTH previously outlined, Acting Director of National Intelligence Bill Pulte is following a very predictable path. The part of the CBS report that tells the story is: “Six career and political intelligence staff were terminated and 45 were sent back to their home agencies, according to three sources familiar with the personnel moves.” … “One source characterized the cuts as thoughtful and methodical. No staffers have been removed from the counterterrorism group.”


So, who was removed? Well, I’m certainly not the Nostradamus of USIC, but if I were to hazard an educated guess it looks like the National Intelligence Council – Directorate of Analysis, just lost six political staff, and 45 people from the various liaison desks were ‘sent back to their home agencies.’ As we noted last year, Tulsi Gabbard took the National Intelligence Council (NIC) out of the CIA – fired the heads, then putting the assembly back under the control of the ODNI. However, highly political operatives within the former CIA-controlled Directorate of Analysis (the former home of Eric Ciarmella) were still problematic. It looks like Director Pulte just eliminated the remaining DoA rats.

The 45 returned to their ‘home agencies‘ were certainly from the liaison desks inside the DNI. I’m not sure if that represents 45 from across all the desks, or the complete elimination of some overstaffed liaison desks. That said, given the nature of the leaking was recently to CNN (State Dept leaks to CNN), I am somewhat confident the State Dept liaison office inside the DNI is now empty office space. [Just a hunch.] Please remember, our predictive public discussions at CTH are in the strictest confidence.

“(via CBS) Just over 50 career and political intelligence staff at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have been removed from their roles since Bill Pulte became the agency’s acting director, Friday. Six career and political intelligence staff were terminated and 45 were sent back to their home agencies, according to three sources familiar with the personnel moves. Pulte has been asking deputies and other directors for suggestions about cuts. Some of the ODNI deputies pushed for more cuts, but Pulte said that the 51 was enough for now, one of the sources said.

One source characterized the cuts as thoughtful and methodical. No staffers have been removed from the counterterrorism group. No further firings are planned for now, two of the sources said. The cuts follow hundreds of staff reductions last year by former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who stepped down last week. Last year’s planned downsizing sought to bring the office’s headcount from 2,000 to around 1,300. President Trump has pushed for further cuts, directing Pulte to “execute the immediate and needed downsizing of the office” in a Truth Social post earlier this month.

[…] Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence panels, warned Pulte against making large-scale staff cuts, calling it an inappropriate course of action for an acting official without national security experience. (more)

Senator Warner haz sad. Meanwhile in related news: “This sets up a stalemate as several Democrats have said they will not support reauthorizing Section 702 while Pulte remains Trump’s acting DNI pick.”

No FISA (702)? As Winnie the Pooh would say, “Oh, bother!”

Read more …

Enjoy your last few years of driving, before the car takes over.

• The Media Is Still Trying to Smear Tesla (Margolis)

Earlier this week, a Tesla Model 3 driver in Katy, Texas, a Houston suburb, left the roadway at a “high rate of speed” and slammed into a brick home, killing a 76-year-old woman. The driver, Michael Butler, cooperated with investigators, showed no signs of intoxication, and claimed the car’s automated driving feature was engaged at the time. That claim was all the media needed. The New York Times ran with the headline “Tesla Driver Using Autopilot Crashes Into Home, Killing a Woman, Officials Say.” The Associated Press reported that “the top U.S. auto regulator opened an investigation Monday after a Tesla using an automated driving feature slammed into a Texas home at high speed and killed a 76-year-old woman standing inside.”


Notice the framing. The driver’s word was treated as fact. Tesla’s culpability was treated as settled. Did it occur to a single reporter that a driver facing potential liability for killing someone might have an incentive to point the finger at the car instead of himself? I’ve owned a Tesla for over a year now, and roughly 95% of my driving happens with Full Self-Driving (Supervised) engaged. Whether it’s quick runs to the store or long road trips to Boston, I love using it. It’s a remarkable piece of technology, and it works extremely well. So when this story broke, I was skeptical right away, and so were plenty of other Tesla owners on social media.

Anyone with real experience behind the wheel of a self-driving Tesla could tell almost instantly that this had the fingerprints of driver error, not a software failure.= Sure enough, Tesla and Elon Musk have since confirmed exactly that. Ashok Elluswamy, Tesla’s head of AI, revealed that the company’s data shows the driver manually overrode the self-driving system by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%. The car reached 73 miles per hour, and according to Elluswamy, the accelerator was still pressed “even after the crash.”

My experience with FSD has shown me that FSD always errs on the side of safety. Just today, it waited much longer to take a left turn on a busy main road than I would have. Is it perfect? No. But is it a safer driver than a human? You bet. A few weeks ago, it broke fast for a child who was running into the road in the opposite lane before I’d even seen him. This is not the first time the media has rushed to hang a crash on Tesla’s self-driving technology, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

The data tells a story the press doesn’t want to print. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have both ranked Tesla models among the safest cars on the road. Even left-wing influencer Brian Krassenstein bought a Cybertruck specifically because of its safety record. None of this fits the narrative the media wants. Musk is a political target, and Tesla is the easiest way to come after him without saying his name. So every crash becomes an opportunity, every unverified driver claim becomes a headline, and every correction gets buried below the fold, if it runs at all.

The press had a chance to wait for the facts before running the story. They chose the smear instead.

Read more …

As a -former- Montrealer, i’m interested of course.

The guy seems to have hated just about everyone.

“According to him, athletic white men get all the advantages, and women overwhelmingly have better mental health than men..”

• Deadly Montreal Shooter Hated Capitalism, Women, White Men, and Jews (Salgado)

The Montreal shooter’s manifesto makes it clear that he was a deranged leftist who was bitter against women, blaming capitalism and “white men” for the problems in his life, and that he was also antisemitic. Hatfield was a philosophy student at the University of Lethbridge, according to Rebel News.


Seth Hatfield from Alberta murdered a police officer, Constable Mohamed Lamine Benredouane, and a local Jewish man, Michael Mizrahi, on Monday in a crazed shooting spree in a Jewish section of Montreal. Police ended up killing Hatfield, too, during the shootout. Hatfield apparently left behind him a long, angry, and rambling manifesto condemning private property and the capitalist system, raging against women, and railing against Zionism. It is a very woke manifesto that glorifies Communism.

For instance, footnotes in the manifesto with Hatfield’s name include the claim, “The influence of Zionist Jews upon the western bourgeoisie is in fact so strong that in my other works I sometimes refer to the western ruling class itself as the Judaeo-bourgeois class… it is very important not to fall into the absurd delusion of thinking that all Jews globally are somehow the participants in the globalist/imperialist scheme that the elite Zionists and their western bourgeois allies are so desperately trying to enact in present times.” He therefore had a particular hatred for Jews who support having a single Jewish nation in the world.

In fact, Hatfield framed the Allies’ defeat of the “National Socialist enemies” — the Nazis — as a turning point in the triumph of what he sees as an evil capitalist system, and the destruction of a supposedly happier world. Hatfield specifically called out President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — the great warriors against the Soviet Union — for criticism. The shooter mourned the collapse of the Soviet Union and how few Communist countries exist at the present day. Ignoring the horrendous massacres by the Soviets and the total and deliberate undermining of marriage in Soviet Russia, Hatfield described their society as “culturally healthy and largely monogamous” under “communist leadership.”

The extremely lengthy manifesto includes rambling about vertebrates, human copulation, and how supposedly monogamy benefits women and weaker men but not stronger men. Capitalism is therefore a sinister plot of strong, handsome men to obtain endless sex partners. Hatfield’s standard was entirely based on how many sex partners an individual can find with whom to reproduce, not on any sense of religious duty in marriage or love.

He also asserted that capitalism undermined monogamy, even though it is actually socialist ideologies that have encouraged sexual licentiousness across the modern world. Soviet Russia, his supposedly ideal state, encouraged the most widespread divorce and sexual immorality. “By middle class I mean both the petty bourgeois class and the labour aristocracy together as one broad group,” Hatfield claimed. “… capitalism as a system was not a creation of the common man… capitalism was the creation of a smaller or more privileged male clique.”

Ironically, just after making this assertion, Hatfield acknowledged the connection between capitalism and classical liberalism and admitted, “liberalism and capitalism operate under the assumption that all men are created equal.” But he insisted, “This assumption is blatantly and demonstrably false.”

Hatfield also condemned the idea that humans ought to be autonomous and allowed to make their own decisions. This obviously comes from his misunderstanding about what liberalism and capitalism actually mean. America’s Founders never believed there could be equality of outcome or opportunities or talent. They argued for the equality of basic human rights given by God. But it seems pretty obvious the shooter did not believe in God — or in the inherent value of human life, of course.

In the manifesto, Hatfield went on to rant against women in the workforce and the importation of cheap migrant labor, not for the reasons that a traditional conservative might criticize them, but simply because he mysteriously attributed these changes to capitalist exploitation leading to women selecting only the most attractive partners. He went on at great length, claiming that women have the power in our society to abuse men and not make themselves attractive to men, without acknowledging that our society, in fact, corrupts both men and women, and that out-of-wedlock births are least beneficial to women. The shooter did not even understand how he himself had fallen prey to the very propaganda that created the modern relationship crisis.

Hatfield also claimed “Caucasian-looking features” give white men an advantage in dating. Even while admitting that modern society leads to sexual abuse of women, he again attributed this to the supposed power that “capitalism” has given tall white men. According to him, athletic white men get all the advantages, and women overwhelmingly have better mental health than men, both of which statements are patently false. Hatfield also griped about “bourgeois courts” and said “dispossessed males” can only find comfort in online forums with other bitter men.

Without realizing it, Hatfield was both a product of modern socialist propaganda and the source of his own problems. Instead of trying to turn to God and become a better man, he blamed all of his problems on rich white men, the Jews, and “capitalism.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/2069171513056752051?s=20 https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2069408180518432997?s=20 https://twitter.com/ThierryTout/status/2069092549013467462?s=20 “50 years from now, on this map the West has already nearly disappeared ..”

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 23 2026

Jun 232026
 
 June 23, 2026  Posted by at 9:52 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  29 Responses »


El Greco Dormition of the Mother of God 1565-1566


• War On Iran: Trump: “It Really Probably Is Unconditional Surrender” (MoA)
• Israelis Are Livid Over Trump Ending War, Overwhelmingly Believe Iran Won (ZH)
• Iran Agrees To Invite Nuclear Inspectors Back; Vance Hails Great Progress (ZH)
• Slouching Toward Peace (James Howard Kunstler)
• The ‘Seinfeld’ Theory of Iran Negotiations (Scott Pinsker)
• Trump May Have Given Us a HUGE Hint About His Successor (Margolis)
• Fail, Britannia: Meet the New Commie, Worse Than the Old Commie (Green)
• Support For UK Monarchy Hits Record Low (RT)
• Keir Starmer Reveals How Much Labour Resembles American Democrats (Queen)
• Tucker Carlson No Longer Supports The Republican Party: ‘I’m Out’ (JTN)
• Rand Paul Subpoenas Fauci For Testimony in COVID Origin Probe (JTN)
• Tulsi Gabbard Biolab Releases (CTH)
• Spanish PM’s Wife Faces Trial On Corruption Charges (RT)
• Go East, Young SpaceX Millionaire! (Stephen Green)

 


 

https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2068824029906256172?s=20

 


 


There’s quite a few people I don’t agree with anymore on the topic. Makes me curious.

• War On Iran: Trump: “It Really Probably Is Unconditional Surrender” (MoA)

On Wednesday, June 17 2026, Trump signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran in Versailles. That palace has seen a lot of defeats. Asked about the MoU he called it an “unconditional surrender”: Caputo also asked Trump about his original promise that the war would end with an “unconditional surrender” from Tehran, pointing to the memorandum of understanding he signed on Wednesday. “Well, it really probably is unconditional surrender,” Trump told the outlet. But Trump leaves this open: Surrender by whom? His declared war aims and demands for Iran were regime change, no ballistic missiles and no nuclear program.


Now Trump himself is fearing regime change. He defends Iran’s reliance on ballistic missiles and no longer minds it having nuclear stuff. March 6 2026: President Trump declared on Friday that he would settle for nothing short of “unconditional surrender” by Iran, the latest and broadest expansion of his goals for the conflict, Six days into the Israeli and American bombing campaign, Iran has shown no interest, at least publicly, in surrendering. Mr. Trump declared on Saturday, in the opening hours of the U.S. attack, that Iran’s people should rise up and overthrow their government.

But in the following days, both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pivoted away from the emphasis on regime change, saying that the United States was simply focused on assuring that Iran’s nuclear program was permanently destroyed, and that it no longer had the missile capability to attack Israel, its Arab neighbors, and perhaps someday America. Trump Demands ‘Unconditional Surrender’ by Iran (archived) – Mar 6 2026 – NY Times

June 18 2026: President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he was motivated to finalize the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran to prevent “economic catastrophe” if the war was not resolved soon. “So rather than possibly going into a depression, rather than having your favorite president be Herbert Hoover, he was always the one I didn’t want to be,” Trump said of the 31st president whose policies are often blamed for starting the Great Depression. Trump also said he was open to allowing Iran to maintain its stockpile of ballistic missiles, claiming it was “unfair” for Iran to not be able to have the weapons if their neighbors do. …

And despite his insistence that the memorandum states that Iran cannot develop or obtain a nuclear weapon — one of his chief concerns during negotiations, Trump also appeared softer during the press conference on Wednesday in his position on whether Iran could develop a nuclear program for civilian purposes in the future. “You know, it’s also, it is a little hard though when you say that somebody wants—other people have it, other adjoining states have it and you’re not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that. It’s always a little tough. You have to use a little common sense,” Trump added.

Trump didn’t want ‘Herbert Hoover’ presidency with Iran; said it has to have ‘some’ missiles – Jun 18, 2026 – ABCnews. Professor Mearsheimer was quite explicit in his latest talk (vid) with Judge Napolitano: Trump must shut the war down, whatever it politically might cost, to save the economy and his presidency.After he had launched the war he had to surrender, unconditionally, to prevent a global depression (which still may well happen). It may still take while, and maybe even another round of fighting, until that really sinks in.

Read more …

“93.1% said Iran won.”

What did they presumably win?

• Israelis Are Livid Over Trump Ending War, Overwhelmingly Believe Iran Won (ZH)

After roping President Trump into breaking a core campaign promise, watching the United States expend resources and risk American lives to attack Iran, and then watching Trump take steps to end the war via MOU – Israelis are livid because the US didn’t commit to full-on decimation to celebrate America’s 250th, and say Iran came out ahead. According to a survey conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in partnership with the Agam Institute, 92.1% of Israelis believe Iran came out ahead in the conflict and the US-brokered deal that followed.


Even among voters loyal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conservative bloc, 93.1% said Iran won. 82.9% of respondents said the six-week military campaign against Iran left Israel’s long-term security weaker, not stronger. Another 86% hold a negative view of both the way the fighting ended and the way Washington negotiated the subsequent deal without meaningful Israeli input. Nearly 88% of Israelis believe their country either fell short of its war aims entirely or achieved only partial success, despite the stated objectives being nothing less than dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, neutering its missile arsenal, and toppling the regime in Tehran. Those were the goals. None of them, by the public’s own assessment, were fully met.

Netanyahu has tried to project confidence in the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding anyway. At a press conference Monday, he insisted Iran will never possess nuclear weapons “as long as I am prime minister of Israel.” As we noted on Tuesday, hardline Israeli politicians are livid over the Iran deal, and want Netanyahu out so they can do ‘real regime change.’ “With an agreement or without an agreement, Iran will not have nuclear weapons – not today and not tomorrow,” he said, calling the mission his “life’s mission.” He has also maintained that the nuclear threat from Iran was an “immediate danger” that Israel removed “together with our American friends.”

Either way, Israelis aren’t buying it. 72.5% of respondents reject Netanyahu’s claim that Israel secured major gains and eliminated an existential threat. Only 26.5% rate his handling of the war as “good” or “excellent,” while 56.4% call it “failed” or “poor.” His personal approval as prime minister has collapsed from 40.5% in early March to 29.4% in June, a fifteen-point swing in roughly three months. And of course, there’s Trump… with 69.1% of respondents rated his handling of the war and the resulting deal as “failed” or “poor,” against just 10.8% who called it “good” or “excellent.” Quite the change in sentiment from his 2024 election win…

Despite the widespread belief that the Iran campaign backfired, 48.2% of Israelis say their country should renew major military action against Hezbollah, including strikes in Beirut, even if that means clashing with Trump, who has made clear he wants the fighting in Lebanon to stop. Only 20.9% oppose that course, with the remaining 30.9% undecided. Israelis appear simultaneously convinced the last war was mishandled and eager for the next one. Just 12.2% of respondents believe Israel achieved most of the stated goals against Hamas and Hezbollah following the October 7, 2023 attacks while 61.3% say Israel achieved none of them, and 26.5% say only some were met.

Across the Atlantic, the reception looks entirely different. A Quantus national poll of 1,000 likely US voters found 43% strongly approve and another 13% somewhat approve of the preliminary US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding. Combined disapproval sits at just 13%.The Trump administration has been trying to respond to criticism of the deal, while Israeli cabinet members are talking mad shit about Trump – to the point where VP JD Vance came very close to asking if they’ve even said ‘pwease’ or ‘thank you.’

Vance defended the MOU during Thursday’s White House briefing, pushing back on what he said was misleading media coverage. “The simple fact is that the only way the Iranians get any of those resources – not a single penny, by the way, from the United States of America under any circumstances – but the only way that they would ever get any benefit of the bargain is if they comply fully, and change their behavior,” Vance said of Iran, adding that Tehran’s military and nuclear program “is still destroyed” if Iran refuses to change course. He also said that compliance would bring “a transformative relationship with the Middle East.”

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2067642712560689401?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2067642712560689401%7Ctwgr%5E3ba43edb00d551c7daaa6ef5f831958df7580c5f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fisraelis-are-livid-over-trump-ending-war-overwhelmingly-believe-iran-won-poll

The Hebrew University-Agam Institute survey was conducted June 17–20, using a weighted sample of 3,644 Israelis aged 17 and over, designed to reflect the broader population, and has a maximum sampling error of just 2.2% at a 99% confidence level. Maybe they’ll just keep attacking Lebanon to scuttle the peace deal?

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2067192026118926766?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2067192026118926766%7Ctwgr%5E3ba43edb00d551c7daaa6ef5f831958df7580c5f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fisraelis-are-livid-over-trump-ending-war-overwhelmingly-believe-iran-won-poll

Read more …

They immediately denied it.

• Iran Agrees To Invite Nuclear Inspectors Back; Vance Hails Great Progress (ZH)

Axios is reporting Monday morning Iran has agreed to invite IAEA inspectors back to the country, according to fresh words of Vice President J.D. Vance, who focused all day prior and much into the overnight on forging a path forward toward permanent peace. The two sides are seeking to hammer out a long-term nuclear agreement, now amid the technical talks process, as delegation heads depart Switzerland – leaving diplomatic teams behind. The 60-day roadmap begins. If indeed the UN nuclear inspectors are eventually let back into Iran, this would be a hugely significant step. This would be to verify compliance to the preliminary agreement, Vance further hails:


“Our hope is that we get to the final deal and a permanent settlement. But right now, I think we’ve made great progress and we should all celebrate that in terms of when the nuclear inspectors are going to start,” the American Vice President told reporters. He described that he phoned UN nuclear inspectors at 2am last night to update them on the developments, however, he said that no one picked up the call. “As you can expect, not many people are answering their phone at two in the morning,” said Vance. “I expect that will happen at the minimum this week, but we think even some of those conversations with the inspectors and with the IAEA could happen as soon as today.”

Both warring sides appear to finally be in the same page in terms of issuing ‘positive’ and ‘encouraging’ assessments earlier. There were reports of last-minute disagreements, threats, and warnings that the process could collapse near the conclusion of yesterday’s formal round one of talks. “So they didn’t walk out, and their technical team is still here in Burgenstock working with our technical team,” Vance explained. “What we told the Iranians yesterday is, ‘When you guys exchange in what us millennials might call trash talk, you can’t expect the president of the United States not to respond and not to correct the record’.”

Vance conceded that in the end there was a “a little bit of threatening” and “whining but at the end of the day, the talks continued and we made great progress.” He further described that a mechanism had been established to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, while noting that significant work remained and that technical negotiations would continue. Also, importantly he said that a “very good foundation” was laid for a successful final agreement with Iran.

Read more …

“. . .They are running the Accords logic to its conclusion: every adversary becomes a counterparty, every conflict becomes a deal, every closed economy becomes an investable market.” —Patrick Wood

• Slouching Toward Peace (James Howard Kunstler)

That squawking you hear is Iran getting dragged kicking and screaming out of its jihad delirium into something that might look like reality-based relations with the rest of the world. They have to loudly declare that it’s not happening, even as it’s happening, to gaslight their own home folks, who might be getting a little sick of economic free-fall — and probably sick of the IRGC regime itself. And, of course, they know that the Lefty-left half of the USA is rooting for this whole business to fail so they can get their mitts back on the levers of power to avoid prison.


Things are at a pretty pass, all righty. The sticking point of the moment is Lebanon. Everybody is twanging on Israel to quit fighting Hezbollah. Okay, but does Hezbollah not have some obligation to quit its provocations? And is Iran, which controls Hezbollah, not responsibile to make Hezbollah stop?

Notice, you don’t hear any of the kibitzers calling for that. That’s because getting Hezbollah to poke Israel in the eye with a sharp stick is Iran’s favored device for dragging out negotiations which, they apparently hope, will put POTUS in fear of the looming midterm election. But time is running out on their playing for time. What they’re actually playing is pretend — pretending to be living large and in-charge. They’ve got nothing else, really. They’ve driven their country into a ditch.

The US is in a straight-up good-cop / bad-cop mode. VP Vance, on-the-ground in Switzerland, presents the very picture of a smooth, cool, rational figure where it counts: face-to-face with Iranian leaders, after all these years. He calmly tells the world news media that “encouraging progress” has been made the first day toward a ceasefire in poor, sore-beset Lebanon. As of Monday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi concurred on “X.”

Meanwhile, President Trump was going mad-dog on social media. Of his relations with irksome Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu, POTUS said, “It’s good, but we have to keep him a little bit sane.” He added, “Iran must stop their highly-paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again. . . bomb the shit out of them.” He advised the Iranian negotiators that they “won’t even make if back” to their country if they keep playing games, and declared that the US will take over the Strait of Hormuz, if necessary. A bit harsh, admittedly. Any trouble parsing it out?

Read more …

“Remember the Episode With Jerry and the Tennis Pro?”

• The ‘Seinfeld’ Theory of Iran Negotiations (Scott Pinsker)

This theory seems especially appropriate today: Between Schrödinger’s Strait being both open and closed, Hezbollah’s rockets bombarding Israel, and Iranian negotiators demanding billions in bribes, the ongoing drama at the Bürgenstock Resort in Switzerland is — very likely — “a show about nothing.” It’ll get great ratings. Lots of people will watch. (It’s Must-See TV!) But after all the hype and all the hoopla, DJT’s MOU is DOA. (There will be no TCB.) When all is said and done, the U.S.-Iran negotiations will be about as successful as Kramer’s lawsuit against Java World: JD Vance will get free coffee (I assume), but that’s pretty much it.


Sorry, but that’s the stone-cold truth. You can’t negotiate a peace deal with apocalyptic psychos whose bloodlust surpasses Newman’s waistline. These Iranian hardliners make Crazy Joe Davola look sane. Which is why our peace talks will sink like the 1956 SS Andrea Doria (but then again, “All vacations have to end eventually”). There is no hope! (Nor any hugging or learning.) Or, perhaps, the exact opposite is true — a Bizarro-version of “conventional wisdom,” if you will — and America has Iran by the short hairs.

On Jan. 30, 1997, episode #147 of Seinfeld aired: “The Comeback.” It is, perhaps, the most prophetic episode in Seinfeld’s entire catalog. There were four major storylines:

First was George’s obsession with settling the score with a snarky coworker who made a mean-spirited comment: “Hey George, the ocean called. They’re running out of shrimp!” George went through hell and high water to get even, making himself look utterly preposterous in the process. This storyline, of course, is an allegory for the Tucker Carlson-Mark Levin feud. (Or maybe it’s the Ben Shapiro-Megyn Kelly feud? Or possibly the Candace Owens-Laura Loomer feud? At this point, it’s getting kinda difficult to keep track of who’s feuding with who.)

The second storyline was Kramer’s desperate attempt to annul his living will: He no longer wanted to have his life support terminated. (Thus, becoming pro-life, I suppose.) Yet his frantic attempts to find his attorney were thwarted at the last minute — a chilling commentary on Canada’s euthanasia policies, where a poor shlub with IBS at a Tim Hortons was just “canceled” by a Canadian doctor.

Third was Elaine’s interest in a mysterious video store employee whose taste in cinema was sublime. Alas, when she went to meet him (bringing fireworks, cigarettes, and vodka), she learned he’s only 15. The kid’s mother shamed her, yet Elaine walked away without any legal consequences. Obviously, this was a clever callback to the shocking “industrial scale” sexual assaults that were (allegedly) committed by gangs of Muslim men against 250,000 UK little girls, yet the police declined to prosecute the evildoers. Fun fact: The name of Elaine’s 15-year-old love interest was Vincent — whose name is derived from the Latin word vincere, which means “to conquer.” (Hey, is Seinfeld good or what?)

But it’s the fourth storyline that’s most relevant today: A snooty, self-important employee at a tennis pro shop pressured Jerry into buying an expensive new racket. Later, Jerry learned the employee’s horrible secret: The guy can’t even play a lick of tennis! The desperate employee begs Jerry not to tell anyone — or his reputation will be ruined! His wife will leave him! Nobody at work will respect him! Eventually, Jerry agreed to let the employee beat him in a tennis match while his wife, friends, and coworkers all watched.

Behind-the-scenes, the employee gave Jerry everything he wanted: He refunded the racket. He apologized. He acknowledged how pathetic he is. He promised Jerry a full year of free club membership. He even offered Jerry a one-night stand with his wife! So Jerry decided to let the poor guy save face by giving him a “win” that didn’t really matter. The parallels here to the U.S.-Iran MOU are uncanny: Our military has inflicted between $1.5 and $2 trillion in damage to Iran. Its air force, navy, air defense, nuclear program, and Supreme Leader were all blown to bits.

Behind-the-scenes, Iranian negotiators are telling the Americans how weak and vulnerable they are — and how badly they want to make a deal. But to save face, they asked to “win” the MOU. From CNN: The officials described the text of the [MOU] agreement as incredibly vague, mainly intended to create a more favorable environment for the highly technical, in-person talks to come. They added that the framework is aimed at providing Iran the ability to sell it politically to their internal audience.

Additionally, the officials said that the text of the memorandum of understanding — which Vice President JD Vance told CNN Monday is one-and-a-half pages long — didn’t reflect critical back-channel commitments Iran has made to the US, which they argued gave them more confidence in signing on to the arrangement. “People shouldn’t read too much into the language of the MOU,” one of the officials said, describing the agreement as a “political document.”

[…]

The official added that the president’s team of negotiators “came up with language that allows (Iran) to say what they need to say for their domestic politics.” [emphasis added] When the Iran War began, plenty of Americans were cheering for regime change, hoping that freedom-loving Iranians would rise up and overthrow the mullahs. We assumed that they were the #1 threat to the Ayatollah’s power. But it’s entirely possible we misread the tea leaves — and Iran’s rulers are far more terrified of being killed by hardline Islamists than freedom-loving reformers.

When the Iranians talk about “saving face,” they mean it literally: Pissing off the hardliners is instant death. If so, it would explain the posture of the Trump administration: Iran has already committed to signing a one-sided peace deal, but only with the face-saving cover of an equally one-sided MOU. Otherwise, all the Iranian negotiators will be executed when they return home, and the White House will have to start the peace process all over again. On the outside looking in, it’s unclear how likely this explanation is, but it deserves careful consideration for two important reasons:

The Trump administration insists that it’s true. (And it knows more details than we do.It would certainly explain the administration’s behavior, patience, and tolerance for Iran’s tomfoolery.But even if it’s true, Iran had better tread very, very carefully. Because, as the Seinfeld prophecy foretells, the pro shop employee couldn’t resist gloating about “beating” Jerry. In the middle of their match, he called Jerry names. He mocked his ability. He invited others to laugh at him. He called Jerry a baby, a chicken, and “not a man.”

Read more …

He won’t turn his back on either of the two. Let them fight it out.

• Trump May Have Given Us a HUGE Hint About His Successor (Margolis)

For more than a year, the corporate press has treated Donald Trump’s eventual successor like a riddle they alone can solve, parceling out clues from offhand remarks and body language. A new book suggests they’ve been chasing a story that doesn’t yet exist because Trump himself hasn’t made up his mind. Or has he?


The book, titled Regime Change, by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, chronicles the first year of Trump’s second term. One notable anecdote is that once, during a walk-through with reporters, Trump showed off new flagpoles he had installed on the White House North and South Lawns, something he said he had wanted to do during his first term but had avoided for fear of bad press. Not this time. “You guys were after me,” Trump told the reporters. “I was the hunted. And now I’m the hunter.” That confidence extends to how he talks about who comes next.

According to the book, Trump has repeatedly quizzed his own aides on whether Vice President JD Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio would make a better president after him. And Trump may have given a hint about his preference. Trump is also said to be impressed by the background of Rubio, who is the son of Cuban immigrants. The book describes how, after Trump redecorated the Oval Office to fill it with gold flourishes, someone asked the president about the likelihood that the next president would undo all that he had done. Trump retorted: “Cubans love gold.”

But, Haberman and Swan write, Rubio and Vance are also friends. An example they offer is Rubio texting Vance after the 2024 Republican vice presidential nominee’s comments about “ childless cat ladies ” became a scandal. Rubio offered to campaign with Vance to show his support. Speculation about who Trump prefers as his successor has been rampant pretty much since Trump took office again. In February 2025, Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Trump if he sees Vance as his successor and the 2028 Republican nominee. Trump’s answer wasn’t the easy yes everyone expected. “No, but he’s very capable,” he said, before pivoting to praise. “I think you have a lot of very capable people. So far, I think he’s doing a fantastic job. It’s too early; we’re just starting.”

That answer rattled plenty of people who had assumed that Vance would simply inherit the MAGA movement when Trump’s term ends. A Mediaite report the following month claimed that Trump wants his political dynasty to outlive his own presidency, and three high-level sources claimed that Donald Trump Jr. was seriously weighing a 2028 run of his own.

Donald Trump Jr. wasted no time torching that theory. “I accurately predicted that my buddy JD would be an instant power player in national GOP politics, so your theory is that I worked my a** off to help get him the VP nomination because I want to run for president in 2028?” he said. “Are you f****g retarded? I’m actually glad you’re printing this b******t, though, because at least now the rest of the press corps will see how s****y your ‘sources’ are and how easily you’re played by them. Congrats, moron.”

That’s not the response of a man choosing his words carefully for a future campaign launch. It’s the response of someone who finds the entire premise absurd. So after a year of speculation, here’s what the evidence actually shows: Trump is weighing Vance against Rubio on the merits, and probably seems to be leaning toward Rubio right now.

Read more …

Don’t sound good.

• Fail, Britannia: Meet the New Commie, Worse Than the Old Commie (Green)

The U.K.’s most destructively feckless prime minister (since the last one) is history, but Keir Starmer’s likely successor could prove Britain’s final undoing — if the radical Liberian-born advisor who serves as Andy Burnham’s “brains” gets her way. Burnham, former Mayor of Greater Manchester, won the Makerfield by-election on June 18 with an impressive 55% of the vote — a full rebuke of Reform U.K., too — sending him to Parliament where he’ll make a run at Number 10 Downing St. At least one potential rival, Wes Streeting, stood aside and endorsed Burnham on Monday, pretty much clearing his path.


In his endorsement, Streeting said he wants Labour to pursue “a progressive capitalism focused on wealth creation as much as wealth distribution,” but nobody seems to have told the “brains” behind Burnham: the Liberian-born daughter of lefty radicals, Miatta Fahnbulleh. CutMyTaxUK reported last year that Fahnbulleh “was born in Liberia as part of a prominent leftist revolutionary family, has served as a junior energy & housing minister in the Starmer government before resigning to support Burnham.” Previously, as the “former head of the far-left New Economics Foundation,” she proved “adept at churning out socialist policy proposals.”

Or as CMT-UK put it, “Keir Starmer has appointed a Housing Minister who hates private housing.” Another U.K. publication, Guido Fawkes, put all of Fahnbulleh’s most radical proposals in one handy list on Sunday:
• A wealth tax and yet another windfall tax on oil and gas.
• Mass nationalization e.g. of land, transport, and energy.
• Extending national [welfare] insurance [tax to include] to investment income.
• A cap on interest rates and charges on every form of consumer credit.
• Hiking capital gains tax to income tax levels.
• Hiking the dividend tax to income tax levels.
• Abolition of the upper earnings limit for national insurance.
• Huge expansion of the benefits system, including a “minimum income guarantee” paid to everyone apart from the rich.
• Nationalization of banks and creation of new “green” banks with taxpayer funds.
• Block on private banks lending to anyone with a “large amount of greenhouse gas emissions” and “penalization of banks that provide too many carbon-intensive loans.“
• Forced sale of existing businesses to employees.
• A tripling of the stamp duty [property tax, basically] surcharge to 9% for multiple homeowners and an increase to 6% for non-residents.

So, apart from urging the destruction of the energy industry, banking, and investment, ending private ownership of industry and housing, and a massive expansion of Britain’s welfare state, she’s practically a right-winger. Cough, cough. Here’s a quick look at Fahnbulleh’s background:

https://twitter.com/kunley_drukpa/status/2068249442067571024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2068249442067571024%7Ctwgr%5Efd6865bfde3ade186354994b7afb9adff6e690c6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fvodkapundit%2F2026%2F06%2F22%2Fuk-meet-the-new-commie-worse-than-the-old-commie-n4954224

Britain isn’t just importing mass numbers of Third Worlders; it’s importing Third World lefty radicalism that the West once pounded into smithereens under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan during the last years of the Cold War. The New Statesman’s Nick Plumb describes Fahnbulleh’s governing philosophy as “radical co-operativism,” but all these generations later, Karl Marx couldn’t help but notice the family resemblance. But what’s the big deal about a former Housing Minister with a radical laundry list of ways to destroy what’s left of the British economy?

As CMT-UK also put it, there are “two worrying aspects to this New Statesman article.” The first is that “Burnham apparently doesn’t have many brains,” and the second is that “Fahnbulleh is filling the gap.” Fahnbulleh is one of Burnham’s key allies, campaigned for him in last week’s big by-election win, and previously helped shape policy for a potential Burnham government, according to the BBC. By trading Starmer for Burnham, Britain very well may be going out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Read more …

Elizabeth was popular. That was it.

• Support For UK Monarchy Hits Record Low (RT)

Public support for the British monarchy has fallen to its lowest level in over three decades, a new poll has suggested. Just under half of Britons still favor removing the monarchy, with support particularly weak among younger people. Support for the monarchy has steadily declined since reaching a peak of 80% in 2012 and fell to 55% in 2026, according to data published by Ipsos on Friday. The figure is the lowest recorded by the market research and polling company since it began tracking the issue in 1993 and is well below the long-term average of 71%.


Support has declined across all age groups but is particularly low among Britons aged 18-34, where only a third of respondents said they favor the monarchy – roughly half the level recorded in 2013. According to Ipsos, 45% of people in that age group would prefer the UK to become a republic instead. Satisfaction with King Charles and his heir, Prince William, remains high, the poll suggested as 60% and 71% of respondents respectively said they liked the way the king and the prince were doing their jobs.

The monarchy’s popularity took a hit over one of the Royal family member’s long-standing association to late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The now former Prince Andrew, King Charles’ brother, was initially accused in 2014 of being one of the persons the disgraced financier sex-trafficked woman to. Andrew settled a civil lawsuit with one of the sex-trafficking victims, Virginia Giuffre, in 2022, while still denying all the allegations. In 2026, the British police opened a criminal case against him after a release of additional files in the Epstein case suggested that he allegedly provided confidential government information to the convicted sex offender.

Buckingham Palace commented on the case in February by saying that the Royal family was ready to support the probe “if we are approached by Thames Valley Police” and adding that the king’s “thoughts and sympathies have been, and remain with, the victims of any and all forms of abuse.” According to a poll conducted by YouGov in April, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor remains the most disliked member of the family by a wide margin, with over 90% of Britons having a “negative” or “very negative” view of him.

The influence of the British monarchy abroad has also declined in recent years, with some former British colonies considering severing their remaining ties to the Crown. Barbados became the most recent Caribbean nation to become a republic in 2021 while remaining within Britain’s Commonwealth. A survey conducted by former Conservative Party deputy chairman Michael Ashcroft in 2023 suggested that six of the 14 overseas countries within the Commonwealth realm – including Canada and Australia – would prefer to ditch the monarchy.

Read more …

7 prime ministers in 10 years.

American Democrats have nowhere to turn to. The US system prohibits a third party.

The UK has Nigel Farage waiting in the wings,

• Keir Starmer Reveals How Much Labour Resembles American Democrats (Queen)

I counted, and during my lifetime, the UK has had 13 prime ministers. The count is likely to jump to 14 soon now that Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation as leader of the Labour Party on Monday. Labour is now set for a leadership challenge, with newly elected MP Andy Burnham, formerly mayor of Manchester, as the main challenger. Starmer’s resignation may give rank-and-file Britons (many of whom are discovering the joys of American life during the World Cup) some whiplash, as Noa Hoffman pointed out on Monday’s Coffee House Shots podcast:


I think a lot of people who are not in tune with the day-to-day ins and outs of Westminster politics are going to think, “What the hell is going on?” I think that’s actually going to reflect quite poorly on the Labour Party, because, as Tim said, there was no one major scandal or one major failure that really led to this resignation.

It was sort of a litany of errors, many of them unforced, but nowhere near to the extent of what sort of preceded the big resignations of a lot of Tory prime ministers, so no one is going to say Keir Starmer was doing a great, perhaps even good job, but was he literally the worst thing on earth, or so bad to the extent that everyone thought, given even given the volatile state that the world is in right now, the best thing to do is for you to stand down and bring in a man who nobody, apart from the people of Makerfield voted for, nobody in the general election voted Labour on the basis of Andy Banham leading the party and being a prime minister, and now he’s promising all these big radical changes, unless he U-turns on them, as he has been doing frequently, without a mandate.

So this is going to come as a shock to a lot of people, and I don’t think Labour MPs really understand that. She later said, “But I think the overall question that history will ask is, was that reason enough for him to go and bring on the next sort of big left-wing agenda that we’re about to see that the public did not vote for, and I’m not sure the answer to that is necessarily yes.”

This isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison since the UK’s parliamentary system doesn’t exactly line up with the American democratic republic, but it feels like an echo of the Democrats replacing Joe Biden with Kamala Harris. It’s not clear yet how Labour’s rank and file will take to Burnham’s leadership and policies, so it may drive the country closer to a general election sooner rather than later. In the podcast, the question of Starmer’s legacy came up. Editor Tim Shipman characterized Starmer as one who was good at campaigning but bad at governing — you know, like Barack Obama. Shipman also identified Starmer’s legacy as being much about himself:

The innate thing is that Keir Starmer fundamentally thinks that if you’re a decent chap and you’re going to work and want to do decent things, then decent outcomes will follow. Well, that’s not how politics or government works.

And the other thing he thought was that winning a landslide was some great, massive endorsement of himself, and it was not. It was one of the great two-fingers-to-you [akin to a middle-finger gesture], anyone but the previous lot voters have ever seen in British politics, and that miscalculation, I think, made his government very difficult, and it meant a lot of what he thought he was going to achieve quite easily, like a reset with the European Union. “Oh, which will be fine, because we’re not these wicked Tories. We’re going to go in, and it’s all going to be great, because we’re nice and we’re Labour.”

The Spectator’s Madeleine Grant had another brutal assessment of Starmer’s legacy. In her view, Starmer represents the great gulf between the elites and the great unwashed. There will be much commentariat-painting of Starmer as exhibiting decency, competence and integrity. It probably doesn’t feel like that if you were one of the people he pushed under the bus to save himself, it probably doesn’t feel like that to the pubs and businesses and farms and schools shutting down, it probably doesn’t feel like that if you’re a Chagossian, or a military veteran, or a rape gang victim. Indeed, aside from vibes and the fact that he is ‘like them’, it is very difficult to see where those who laud Starmer as decent, competent, and having integrity have got the idea from.

That perhaps is Starmer’s real legacy: to be the man who embodied more than anyone else the vast gap between those who govern and the governed. The prime minister we were told the nation needed turned out to be the one it deserved. Most deliciously of all, Starmer has embodied the absolute reversal of Blair by proving, even in his departure, that things can, and will, only get worse.

The analogies between Labour and U.S. Democrats are plenty, but Starmer and the upcoming leadership challenge highlight two big comparisons. At the party level, Labour and the Dems are ready to go as far left as they can, and Labour leadership sees itself as an elite class that knows better than the governed, much like Democrats today. It’ll be revealing to watch how this will play out over the next few weeks and what the next general election, whenever it may happen, will bring about.

Read more …

I still find this strange.

• Tucker Carlson No Longer Supports The Republican Party: ‘I’m Out’ (JTN)

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson said recently that he is leaving the Republican Party and will no longer support it because the party allegedly “betrayed” Americans with its alliance with Israel. Carlson, who was previously an ally of President Donald Trump, has split with the “Make America Great Again” movement and the Republican Party over the latter’s ties to Israel. “I’m out,” Carlson said on an episode of the “Can’t Be Censored” podcast that aired Thursday but gained traction Monday. “If I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out. I would not support the Republican Party.


“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States,” he continued. “That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens. It’s not possible to vote for people like that, and I’m not going to.” Carlson, who has supported Republican causes for 35 years, clarified that he would not be supporting Democrats moving forward and was not sure who he would be voting for in future elections. The president and Carlson have been at odds in the second Trump administration, with Trump claiming Carlson has a “low IQ,” and the former Fox host has accused the president of trying to “play God” with the conflict in the Middle East.

Read more …

“Paul is expected to question Fauci on whether he lied to Congress during the pandemic about whether his office had funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.”

• Rand Paul Subpoenas Fauci For Testimony in COVID Origin Probe (JTN)

Senate Homeland Security Chairman Rand Paul issued a subpoena Monday to force former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci to testify in front of his panel after the Biden administration official declined to do so voluntarily. The senator claimed Fauci previously agreed to testify in front of the panel, but former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on her last day in office last week declassified a several-hundred-page agency report on Fauci related to when he was NIAID director, the COVID-19 pandemic and the continuing, unresolved issue of the origin of the deadly virus.


Paul said the new hearing will take place in a public forum next month. “Last week, Anthony Fauci notified us he will NOT voluntarily testify before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, even though he had previously agreed to do so,” Paul said on X. “Therefore, today I have issued a subpoena requiring him to testify before the Committee, in public, next month.” Paul is expected to question Fauci on whether he lied to Congress during the pandemic about whether his office had funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

Despite the evidence of a potential lab leak sickening workers at the Wuhan lab, Fauci has continued to double down on his claim that the COVID-19 virus had emerged naturally from a wet-market in the same areas as the lab, not a leak from the lab itself. No date for the new hearing has been released.

Read more …

Rand Paul can use Tulsi’s material,

• Tulsi Gabbard Biolab Releases (CTH)

Promethean Action PAC’s Barbara Boyd takes a look at the last two declassification releases from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard prior to her resignation. Boyd argues that outgoing DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s recent document releases reveal a global, US-funded biolab network centered on Dr. Anthony Fauci, traced back to January 2014—the same start date cited in Joe Biden’s pardons of Hunter Biden and Fauci. She claims Obama’s 2014 gain-of-function ban pushed the research overseas, with NIH funding routed through EcoHealth Alliance to Wuhan, while Pentagon-backed contractors—especially Metabiota—expanded work in Ukraine after the Maidan coup.


Boyd also highlights a May 2020 Lawrence Livermore assessment describing Wuhan as fitting criteria for an accidental release of an engineered coronavirus and alleges Anthony Fauci steered Biden-era COVID origins reviews toward natural origin while lying to Congress. She links Ukraine lab inventories and broader COVID-era policies to a larger geopolitical and technocratic agenda.

Read more …

He wants to invite in 500,000 people for starters?! Not everyone’s happy with that.

• Spanish PM’s Wife Faces Trial On Corruption Charges (RT)

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s wife, Begona Gomez, will stand trial before a jury on corruption-related charges, EFE news agency reported on Saturday, citing a ruling issued by the investigating judge following preliminary hearings held earlier this week. Gomez was formally charged in April with embezzlement, influence peddling, corruption in business dealings, and misappropriation of funds. Prosecutors are reportedly seeking a 24-year prison sentence for the 55-year-old university director, who was also ordered to surrender her passport and appear in court twice a month pending the subsequent proceedings.


Her adviser, Cristina Alvarez, who is accused of similar offenses, and businessman Juan Carlos Barrabes will also stand trial. The investigation into Gomez was launched in 2024 following a complaint filed by anti-graft campaign group Manos Limpias, whose leader is reportedly linked to Spain’s far right. The organization alleged that Gomez used her position as the prime minister’s wife to influence government contracts given to a group of tech companies.

The scope of the probe later expanded after additional accusations that Gomez misused public funds in the hiring of a consultant and improperly used software while working at Madrid’s Complutense University, where she co-directed an academic chair.Her legal team denied any wrongdoing and argued that the proceedings are politically motivated.Sanchez, the leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, has not been implicated in the case.

However, after the probe became public, he suspended public engagements “for a few days” and said he was considering stepping down, denouncing what he described as a campaign of political and personal harassment against his family. Sanchez later announced that he would remain in office and continue leading the government. Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero also became the subject of a corruption investigation in May over the alleged misuse of €53 million in state aid granted to Plus Ultra airline in 2021. Earlier this week, a court rejected the request of prosecutors to impose precautionary measures, including the surrender of his passport and a travel ban.

Read more …

South Florida.

• Go East, Young SpaceX Millionaire! (Stephen Green)

Aside from fueling Elon Musk’s orbital data center ambitions, the recent SpaceX initial public offering minted thousands of new millionaires — and where they put their money will have ripple effects lasting a generation. Can you guess where that money won’t go? In a charmingly outdated New York Post piece from May, Lydia Moynihan predicted that the SpaceX IPO would create “dozens, if not hundreds” of millionaires, including one anonymous early investor who told Moynihan that “she’s already hired someone to run her newly created family office, which manages her investment portfolio.”


“There are going to be a lot of single family offices that come out of this IPO,” founder of the Family Office Division at Compass, Cindy Scholz, told the Post. The paper reported that with dozens or hundreds of SpaceX millionaires, “Family offices have already grown 25% over the last five years, and she expects to see that number skyrocket in the coming month.” The actual number of new millionaires (and even a few billionaires) created was a bit north of 4,400. Of those, Moynihan’s “hundreds” had eight-figure net-worth paydays when SpaceX went public. That’s a lot of new family offices and whatnots.

Scholz, according to the Post, also said last month that the SpaceX windfall will “accelerate the exodus from California.” Well, guess what? Here comes Kristen Altus from Fox Business, who reported Monday that a “fresh wave of Silicon Valley wealth could soon flow into South Florida.” “With OpenAI quietly filing for a confidential IPO alongside market debuts from aerospace giant SpaceX and AI rival Anthropic,” she wrote, “billions of dollars in overnight liquidity are about to be unlocked for executives and middle management alike.”

However, Altus reported, “Instead of reinvesting in the Golden State, this incoming class of newly minted tech multimillionaires is already flooding Florida real estate brokers with calls — triggering what experts say could be a rapid-fire ‘Tech Exodus 2.0’ measured in months, not years.” Nobody tell Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has already spent all those new income tax dollars.

And Another Thing: I was able to buy exactly one (perhaps overpriced) share of SpaceX the day it went public, and then went into waiting mode. When SPCX share dropped from IPO-hysteria highs on Wednesday, I started buying just a little. I’m now the proud owner of 10 (!!!) whole shares, and am a couple hundred dollars poorer as the shares keep falling. But I don’t care, because I own 10 whole shares of the world’s most exciting company.

Even before SpaceX went public, Frank Jacobs went through the numbers for Big Think in May and found that since 2018, “around 103,000 millionaires moved out of California,” and that “133,000 millionaires moved in to Florida,” mostly from the Formerly Golden State and New York. “Wealthy Americans are migrating in large numbers from high-tax states to lower-tax ones and reshaping the nation’s economic geography,” Jacobs wrote, concluding that “steep marginal tax rates may be counterproductive, driving away the very revenue” Albany and Sacramento hoped to get their greedy blue fingers on.

So it’s no stretch to predict that all these SpaceX/Anthropic/OpenAI IPO winners will follow suit. “The California area codes have already started showing up,” Fort Lauderdale Downtown Development Authority CEO and President Jenni Morejon told Altus. “It’s just that the conversations are evolving.” As it turns out, Florida’s appeal isn’t just about friendly tax and regulatory environments — it’s about the culture. “Silicon Valley is absolutely a boring place to live compared to Miami,” Naftali Group CEO Miki Naftali told Fox. “How can you even compare between living in Miami and Silicon Valley?”

But it’s the lost business opportunities that might come to haunt California and New York the most. “I think you see that this isn’t just a lifestyle narrative,” Morejon added, “it’s actually an operating environment for new businesses. And we have the engineering and infrastructure emerging to prove that.” The money is nice, too — especially when it isn’t flushed down another one of Sacramento’s money pits.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/WikiLeaksQ/status/2068771868018901445?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries