Jean-Francois Millet In the Auvergne 1869
Trump: "We go in, we blow up countries, and then we leave. We got nothing except dead people all over the place. How stupid are we? That was a Cheney and a Bush. Not just Democrats. It's both. I'm equally angry at both." pic.twitter.com/yO5W4Vy9xp
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) October 10, 2024
We Robot
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2024
FSD
Elon Musk: You can't solve self-driving unless you have millions of cars on the road.
“We are no longer compute-constrained for training.
I checked in with the team, is there anything we could do to improve the pace of progress with respect to training and inference?
And… pic.twitter.com/iccXoWu7CD
— ELON DOCS (@elon_docs) October 10, 2024
Tips
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2024
What can be
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2024
The President
https://twitter.com/i/status/1844442775745634513
Cellphones
https://twitter.com/i/status/1844085783516545366
Appellate
The appellate court is preparing to overturn Letitia James’s nearly $500m case against Trump — and the judge is making it quite clear: GUARDRAILS against Leticia are needed! pic.twitter.com/9tiZPcGEFw
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) October 11, 2024
“..it’s simply not possible for her to win the PV if she is running this poorly in NY, MD, NJ, CA, etc. Not possible math..”
• Suspicions Grow That Some Polls May Be Masking True Size Of Trump’s Lead (JTN)
A string of polls from legacy outfits has pointed to a shift toward former President Donald Trump in most of the major battleground states while Vice President Harris maintains a national lead, but some analysts see a critical disconnect between state and national polling that could suggest the Republican is on even stronger footing. Harris currently leads Trump by 2.0% in the RealClearPolitics polling average, with 49.1% support to his 47.1%. That figure includes a Rasmussen Reports survey showing Trump with a two-point lead, a Reuters/Ipsos survey showing Harris up two, a Morning Consult poll with Harris up five, a Yahoo News poll with the race tied, and a number of other surveys. A New York Times/Siena College survey showed Harris up three points. But pollsters have pointed to an apparent disconnect between state and national level polls, with state-level surveys increasingly shifting toward Trump while Harris seemingly holds steady at the national level.
They have further observed two consistent patterns of national polling that appear to vary widely due to methodology.Dominating headlines this week was a bombshell Quinnipiac University survey, which is typically favorable to Democrats, that showed Trump leading by 2% in Wisconsin and 3% in Michigan. “The Harris post-debate starburst dims to a glow as Harris enters the last weeks slipping slightly in the Rust Belt,” Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy wrote. Far from an outlier, other surveys have followed those results, showing Trump either tied or leading Harris in those battlegrounds. A survey from The Hill/Emerson College, for instance showed the Michigan race tied at 49% each. That survey found the same result in Wisconsin. Polling averages currently show Trump poised to take Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Arizona. Harris, for her part, holds narrow leads in Minnesota and Nevada. Should such results hold, Trump would handily carry the Electoral College, barring major upsets.
The campaign released its own internal polling in a Thursday memo, showing Trump winning all seven of the key battleground states it tracked. Betting markets have also shifted decidedly in favor of Trump. Polymarket currently assigns him a 55.3% chance of winning, compared to 44.3% for Harris. The vice president was the race’s favorite just days ago. “People want America to be strong, and there really is no comparison between what Donald Trump showed us in his four years and what Kamala Harris has shown us [in] her four years as Vice President, and, you know, her tenure in the Senate,” Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley said on the “John Solomon Reports” podcast. “And so I think as people are looking at the world through that prism, it’s not surprising that we’re starting to see the polls kind of shifting our way.”
Compared to his prior elections, Trump is in a far more favorable position at this stage in the race. Against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016, he trailed by 5.8% on Oct. 10. Against President Joe Biden in 2020, he trailed by 10.0%. But that aggregate includes a handful of polls showing either a tied race or moderate Trump lead and a slew showing Harris with a 3-5% edge. “There have been two universes. 1) A close race with a marginal Trump edge. 2) Ridiculous leads for Harris larger than Obama that are never going to happen,” posted Big Data Poll Director Rich Baris in response to an Emerson College poll showing Trump ahead in Pennsylvania. NYT/Siena pollster Nate Cohn this week outlined a key methodological divide leading to some of the apparent polling conflicts, that of “weighting on recalled vote.” In that method, polls ask respondents for whom they voted in 2020 and weight those results to ensure a sample that matches the outcome of the prior election.
Polls that use such a weighting method, he asserted, tend to more closely resemble 2020 election results, while those that don’t, seem to mirror the 2022 midterms. The NYT/Siena College poll does not “weight by recalled vote.” While the issue of “weighting by recalled vote” might explain a chasm between different national polls, it would not explain the apparent disconnects between state and national data from the same outlets. Harvard CAPS/Harris poll director Mark Penn, for instance, highlighted what he called a “polling paradox,” noting that “[t]he Times/Siena poll shows Harris up 3 nationally (within their margin of error) but losing to Trump by 14 in Florida.” “Newsflash — they can’t both be right. It would be paradoxical for Harris to be up with seniors nationally and down with Floridians,” he added. “Florida has high concentrations of seniors and Latinos and if Trump is winning those groups he is sweeping Pa.,Nv and Az. The state polls and national polls have to be in sync and I can’t say which is right but one or both are off base.”
Baris also pointed to an apparent split, with polls showing Harris poised to win the popular vote despite faring significantly worse in deep-blue states such as California and New York. Baris, like Penn, pointed to the NYT/Siena poll, but notably pointed to a drop in Harris’s support in Democratic bastions. He further accused the Times of “giving their readers bipolar results for copium.” “More polls today showing Harris down in key states but also running way behind Clinton and Biden in another blue state. To the point I made yesterday, it’s simply not possible for her to win the PV if she is running this poorly in NY, MD, NJ, CA, etc. Not possible math,” he wrote. “I’m watching this being covered as a good thing for Harris. It’s an absolute catastrophe for her,” Baris wrote, in response to Mason-Dixon/Telemundo data showing Harris leading Trump among California Hispanics 55% to 35%. Biden, by contrast, won that bloc 75% to 23%. Those figures mark a 32% swing in one of the state’s largest voting blocs toward Trump.
“Why did 60 Minutes choose not to air Kamala’s full word salad, and what else did they choose not to air?”
• ‘60 mInutes’ Airs Two Different Answers From Harris To Same Question (RT)
The ‘60 minutes’ program on CBS has broadcast two different answers to the same question from US Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris. During the segment, interviewer Bill Whitaker asked Harris if she believed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not listening to the US amid an escalation in the Middle East. The vice president’s reply to that question was not the same in the preview that aired on Sunday as it was in the actual show that was broadcast on Monday. In the preview, which was shown as part of the ‘Face the Nation’ program, Harris said: “Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.” However, when the actual ‘60 minutes’ episode aired the next day, the Democratic presidential nominee’s answer was changed to a completely different one, which was shorter and more clear.
“We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end,” Harris said during the program. On Tuesday, the campaign of former US president and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump urged CBS and the producers of ‘60 minutes’ to release the full interview with Harris. “On Sunday, 60 Minutes teased Kamala’s highly-anticipated sit-down interview with one of her worst word salads to date, which received significant criticism on social media. During the full interview on Monday evening, the word salad was deceptively edited to lessen Kamala’s idiotic response,” Trump campaign national spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, said.
“Why did 60 Minutes choose not to air Kamala’s full word salad, and what else did they choose not to air? The American people deserve the full, unedited transcript from Kamala’s sit-down interview… What do they, and Kamala, have to hide?” Leavitt insisted. The Harris campaign insisted that it had nothing to do with the changes made to her interview. “We do not control CBS’s production decisions and refer questions to CBS,” a campaign aide told several outlets, including Fox News and Variety. Trump took to his Truth Social platform on Thursday, accusing ‘60 minutes’ of replacing Harris’ answer with another in order to “make her look better,” and labelling CBS itself a “a giant Fake News Scam.” “CBS should lose its license, and it should be bid out to the Highest Bidder, as should all other Broadcast Licenses, because they are just as corrupt as CBS – and maybe even WORSE!” he wrote.
Fake news is protected as free speech?!
• US Media Regulator Comments On Trump’s CBS Demand (RT)
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s criticism of the way CBS edited its interview with his Democratic rival Kamala Harris is a threat to free speech and democracy, the head of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has stated. Trump had accused CBS of perpetrating “the Greatest Fraud in Broadcast History” by rearranging the ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Harris, aired earlier this week, to make her look more coherent. He called for the network to lose its license. ”While repeated attacks against broadcast stations by the former President may now be familiar, these threats against free speech are serious and should not be ignored,” FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, said in a statement on Thursday. “The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”
According to Rosenworcel, “the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy.” That particular section of the US Constitution prevents the government from infringing on freedom of speech, the press, assembly or religion. Harris recorded the ‘60 Minutes’ interview as part a media blitz, trailing Trump in many polls as the November 5 election approaches. A preview of the interview, aired on Sunday, showed her giving a confusing and convoluted response to a question about Israel. The full show, however, contained a completely different response – leaving viewers baffled as to what Harris actually said and when. Trump responded with several posts on his Truth Social platform, accusing CBS of having “sliced and diced” Harris’ “virtually incoherent” answers to make her look good, in what he called a stain on the reputation of both ‘60 Minutes’ and the network.
“It is the very definition of FAKE NEWS! The public is owed a MAJOR AND IMMEDIATE APOLOGY!” he posted on Thursday. The former and aspiring future US president suggested that other broadcast networks weren’t any better and should get their licenses pulled as well. Rosenworcel’s statement comes amid a widespread push by Democrats to censor social media in the name of combating “disinformation” to “protect our democracy.” Meanwhile, the FCC has voted along party lines to fast-track the purchase of over 200 radio stations in more than 40 markets across the US by a group backed by Democrat mega-donor George Soros. Republican commissioner Brendan Carr has called the decision “unprecedented” and said it did not follow the requirements and procedures codified in federal law.
“President Joe Biden promised to provide everything needed, “as long as he doesn’t ask for F-15s.”
• Biden Ordered Trump To Be Protected As A ‘Sitting President’ (RT)
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign has requested additional resources, including military aircraft, to protect the Republican candidate in the final weeks before the election. President Joe Biden promised to provide everything needed, “as long as he doesn’t ask for F-15s.” Following two assassination attempts against Trump in recent months, his campaign has been in contact with the White House and the Secret Service to request military assets for added protection, according to multiple US media reports on Friday. President Biden stated that he had ordered his administration to provide Trump “all that he needs” when asked about these reports. ”As long as he doesn’t ask for F-15s,” he told reporters, before adding that he “was being facetious.” “Look, I’ve instructed the department to give him every – every single thing he needs for his… as if he were a sitting president. Give him all that he needs. If it fits within that category, that’s fine. But if it doesn’t, he shouldn’t,” the US leader explained.
The request for military assets includes aircraft and vehicles to transport Trump between campaign events and expanded flight restrictions over his homes and rallies. However, reports from the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN did not mention whether the Republican campaign sought fighter jet escorts. Trump’s presidential rival, Kamala Harris, receives protection from the US Marines as Vice President and travels on a US military aircraft designated as Air Force Two. The Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, confirmed that it received requests for increased protection but did not disclose details. “The former president is receiving the highest levels of protection,” said a representative for the agency, noting that the Secret Service would continue to adjust its protective posture as needed to address evolving threats.
The agency faced criticism after the first assassination attempt against Trump in July, which resulted in the resignation of its director. Since then, it has increased its defensive measures for Trump, including the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, counter-drone technology, and other protective and surveillance systems. Last month, Trump claimed there are “big threats” to his life from Iran after he and his team met with representatives from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The agency declined to disclose details of the meeting, although the Trump campaign stated it focused on “real and specific threats from Iran to assassinate him in an effort to destabilize and sow chaos in the US.” Trump narrowly escaped death on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, after a 20-year-old man fired shots from a rooftop, grazing Trump’s ear and killing one audience member.
The would-be assassin, Thomas M. Crooks, was killed by the US Secret Service, and his body was quickly cremated; his social media accounts have since been scrubbed. Another would-be assassin, 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh, was arrested by the Secret Service on September 15 after being spotted near a Trump-owned golf course in Florida, apparently attempting to take a shot. Routh, a convicted felon, spent much of the past three years in Ukraine, claiming to various Western media outlets that he was fundraising and recruiting for Kiev’s war effort. The FBI is investigating both incidents as attempted assassinations, but authorities have yet to provide any information about possible motives and have not revealed any evidence linking to an Iranian plot.
“Many are left with a Ned Flanders moment of “well, if that don’t put the “dink” in co-inky-dink.”
• Judge Agrees To Release More Trump Material Before the Election (Turley)
It appears that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith are not done yet in releasing material in advance of the election. In a previous column, I criticized the release of Smith’s 180-page brief before the election as procedurally irregular and politically biased, a criticism shared by CNN’s senior legal analyst and other law professors. Nevertheless, on Thursday, Judge Chutkan agreed to a request from Smith to unseal exhibits and evidence in advance of the election. The brief clearly contains damning allegations, including witness accounts, for Trump. The objection to the release of the brief was not a defense of any actions taken on January 6th by the former president or others, but rather an objection to what even the court admitted was an “irregular” process.
As discussed earlier, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial. Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections. To avoid allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
Even if one argues that this provision is not directly controlling or purely discretionary, the spirit of the policy is to avoid precisely the appearance in this case: the effort to manipulate or influence an election through court filings. With no trial date for 2025, there is no reason why Smith or Chutkan would adopt such an irregular process. The court could have slightly delayed these filings until after the approaching election or it could have sealed the filings. If there is one time where a court should err on the side of avoiding an “irregular” process, it is before a national election. What may look like simply an adversarial process to some looks like oppo research to others. Delaying the release would have avoided any appearance of such bias.
For Smith, the election has long been the focus of his filings and demands for an expedited process. Smith knows that this election is developing into the largest jury verdict in history. Many citizens, even those who do not like Trump, want to see an end to the weaponization of the legal system, including Smith’s D.C. prosecution. Trump has to lose the election for Smith to be guaranteed a trial in the case. Chutkan has given the Trump team just seven days to oppose her order. That would still allow the material to make it into the public (and be immediately employed by the media and Harris campaign) just days before the election. The move will only increase criticism that this looks like a docket in the pocket of the DNC. It is telling that, once again, the timing just works out to the way that is most politically impactful. Many are left with a Ned Flanders moment of “well, if that don’t put the “dink” in co-inky-dink.”
“I have had the opportunity to have him on my show, more than once, and I have said no every time. I don’t want to help him, I’m not interested in helping him.”
• Elon Musk Predicts Joe Rogan Will Interview Donald Trump (ZH)
Just minutes before the scheduled start of the much-anticipated Robotaxi event on Thursday night, Elon Musk took to Twitter to tell the world an interview between Joe Rogan and Donald Trump “will happen”. Musk made the post responding to our article, “Joe Rogan Has 25 Days To Interview Donald Trump”, submitted by Zero Hedge contributor Quoth the Raven, who wrote on Tuesday: “I can’t listen to another 4 years of Rogan bitch about how bad things have gotten if he won’t talk to Trump.” Rogan has been notoriously uninterested in the interview, which he has been asked about multiple times over the last half decade. Back in June 2023, when asked about the idea, Rogan said to Lex Fridman: “I have had the opportunity to have him on my show, more than once, and I have said no every time. I don’t want to help him, I’m not interested in helping him.”
By August 2023, it looked like Rogan might be changing his tune, as he told Valuetainment’s Patrick Bet-David: “I don’t know. Maybe. At a certain point in time. Just like, it would be interesting to hear his perspective on a lot of things.” Since then, Rogan has stated his admiration for RFK, Jr., who is now supporting Trump. He has also given a platform to Tulsi Gabbard, who is campaigning with, and for, Trump. The idea that Rogan wouldn’t interview Trump, who has recently done podcasts with Theo Von and Andrew Schultz, to name a few, seems bizarre. QTR wrote on his blog Tuesday night that “If anything, an interview would give Rogan an opportunity to push Trump on the things that he disagrees with him on. Bring him on and give him hell if you want, Joe. Rogan could even extend an invitation to the Harris campaign and invite her on for a separate appearance if she wants.”
“I don’t want to pretend to understand what the problem is that Rogan has with Trump, but all I know is that it’s not bigger than the potential consequences of this election,” he wrote. “After listening to Rogan’s podcast for nearly 2,000 episodes, I’m confident in my assessment that he’s a person of integrity and a man of character. The truth is, whether he likes it or not, putting his personal animus aside and getting Trump on the largest media platform in the world can only make an impact for the next month or so.” He concluded: “After the November election, especially if Trump loses, there will be no point — and it’ll be impossible to listen to Rogan crow about the lunatics on the left any further, knowing he didn’t talk to Trump when he had the chance. So let’s get real, Joe: what the hell are you waiting for?”
QTR first predicted the interview would happen in September 2023: “To me, this meeting seems inevitable over a long enough timeline. There’s sufficient positive motivation for both parties to make it happen before the 2024 election, which is why I predict the interview will likely air before the end of the first quarter of 2024.” He’s got about 3 weeks left…
This for me goes much too far.
“In Walz’s state and on his watch, five infants were “born alive” in 2021 during failed abortions, and none received life-saving care, though two got “comfort care..”
• Democrats, Media Misrepresent Abortion Policies On Both Sides (JTN)
Democrats and the media have misrepresented the abortion policies of Republicans and the Democratic vice presidential nominee, claiming that the former are secretly much more strict than they are and arguing that the latter is not as liberal as he appears. From Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz’s abortion policies as Minnesota governor to Republicans’ stance on a national abortion ban, Democrats have distorted both their own record and their opponents’ on abortion in the months leading up to the presidential election. Following the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, which returned the abortion question back to the states, Democrats have made abortion a top priority in their campaigns. According to a Gallup poll from May, 50% of U.S. adults said that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances, while 35% believe it should be legal under any circumstances, and 12% said it should be illegal in all circumstances.
Abortion was a discussion topic in both the presidential and vice presidential debates. Former President Donald Trump said in the last presidential debate in September that Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ “vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth — it’s execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born is okay, and that’s not okay with me.” ABC News’ Linsey Davis pushed back on Trump’s statement during the presidential debate, saying, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” NPR also said that abortions after birth are currently illegal in all 50 states. “Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion,” Harris said during the presidential debate. “That isn’t happening; it’s insulting to the women of America.”
However, the states of Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., allow abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy, according to the National Catholic Register. During the vice presidential debate earlier this month, Walz was put on the defensive when asked about his state’s law on babies surviving botched abortions and Trump’s statement. “The question got asked and Donald Trump made the accusation that wasn’t true about Minnesota,” Walz said. Later on in the debate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, said, “[a]nd maybe you’re free to disagree with me on this and explain this to me, but as I read the Minnesota law that you signed into into law, the statute that you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide life-saving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion.”
Walz pushed back, claiming, “[t]his is a very simple proposition. These are women’s decisions to make about their healthcare decisions, and the physicians who know best when they need to do this. Trying to distort the way a law is written to try and make a point, that’s not it at all.” When Vance asked Walz if what he said was incorrect, Walz responded, “That is not the way the law is written.” “In Walz’s state and on his watch, five infants were “born alive” in 2021 during failed abortions, and none received life-saving care, though two got “comfort care,” the Minnesota Department of Health reported on July 1, 2022. Three other infants were “born alive” during abortions in 2019, Walz’s first year as governor, and they too perished without life-saving care, according to a July 1, 2020, report from the same state agency.
‘Stop doing it, this is crazy, it will destroy trust in the dollar.’ You can’t go on with the system like this, it’s not just Russia.”
• US Weaponizing Dollar – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)
The US government has weaponized the dollar rather than having it serve as a medium of exchange or a store of value, award-winning American economist and public-policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs has said. Sachs made the remark on Thursday in his address via video link to a meeting of BRICS ministers of finance and central bank governors. The officials were meeting in Moscow to discuss the improvement of the international monetary and financial system, ahead of the BRICS 2024 summit in Kazan later this month. According to the economist, the weaponization of the dollar was obviously happening through the seizure of frozen Russian assets. He also mentioned the freezing by the US government of Iranian, Venezuelan, Afghan and other state funds. The US and its allies have frozen around $300 billion in Russian central bank assets, around $5 billion of which is sitting in American banks, as part of its Ukraine-related campaign of sanctions.
In April, President Joe Biden signed a bill allowing the seizure of Russian funds held in the US and their transfer to a Ukraine reconstruction fund. “You can’t use the dollar as a payments mechanism,” Sachs said, when a president alone can sign orders and seize essentially billions of dollars in Russian assets. The US currency has become “an instrument of aggressive form of policy,” he concluded. “I’ve said to my own government for the last 15 years ‘Stop doing it, this is crazy, it will destroy trust in the dollar.’ You can’t go on with the system like this, it’s not just Russia.” He pointed out that China wants to have normal trade without threats of US sanctions but, although Chinese banks are part of the SWIFT system, they have to abide out of a fear of being cut off the international financial network.
“So, the point is we need alternatives, this is clear,” Sachs stated. “Of course, countries need non-dollar payment mechanisms. We are going to need some quick, special-vehicle entities that are not also engaged in the dollar payment systems… entities that cannot be directly sanctioned…” The economist stressed that “the best alternative would be if the US recovers sense, decency and legality and stops imposing unilateral sanctions.” US actions are “absolutely incorrect” and illegal by the standards of international law and the UN Charter, said Sachs, who is also president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
“Vance, known for opposing aid to Kiev, has consistently argued for negotiating an end to the war, even if it involves ceding territory..”
• Zelensky Is Making Enemies In America (Lolaev)
The US presidential election campaign is entering its final stretch ahead. The outcome is crucial to many of Washington’s foreign partners but particularly for the current government in Kiev. At the end of September, Vladimir Zelensky made another visit to America. Officially coinciding with “UN Week” and a speech at the General Assembly, Zelensky’s six-day trip was primarily focused on one existential issue for his administration – securing continued financial and military support from Washington, regardless of the election results in November. However, achieving this goal proved far more challenging than anticipated. Even Ukraine’s well-oiled PR machine, honed over a decade, struggled to navigate the increasingly polarized American political landscape without incurring damage. Issues arose even before Zelensky touched down on US soil. In an article published in The New Yorker, he described Donald Trump’s running mate JD Vance as “too radical” for suggesting that US support for Ukraine should be reconsidered and that a peace deal might require territorial concessions to Russia.
Vance, known for opposing aid to Kiev, has consistently argued for negotiating an end to the war, even if it involves ceding territory. In response to Zelensky’s comments, the former president’s son Donald Trump Jr criticized the Ukrainian leader for meddling in US domestic affairs, asserting that it is unacceptable for a foreign leader dependent on American taxpayers’ support to speak out against Republican candidates. Things only worsened from there. Zelensky’s first stop was a defense manufacturing plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where he thanked workers for churning out the 155mm artillery shells that are critical to Ukraine’s military. The facility had significantly increased production over the past year, shipping over three million shells to Ukraine. Throughout the visit, Zelensky was heavily protected, with law enforcement patrolling the area.
His trip to Pennsylvania, accompanied by the state’s Democratic governor, led to a backlash from Republicans. Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri, a Trump supporter, remarked that Zelensky’s visit appeared to be a campaign event for Democrats in a key battleground state ahead of the presidential election. Sean Parnell, a former Senate candidate from Pennsylvania and also a Trump supporter, labeled Zelensky’s visit as “foreign interference in our election,” citing the visitor’s criticism of Vance, as well as his closeness to Democrats. The Republican Majority Leader in the House Mike Johnson went even further, refusing to meet with Zelensky and demanding that he dismiss his ambassador in Washington for organizing a visit to Pennsylvania without Republican participation. Johnson characterized the event as “an obvious partisan effort to assist Democrats before the election.”
Following this rocky start, Zelensky found himself with one last chance to salvage his image among conservative audiences – a face-to-face meeting with Trump. Negotiating this encounter proved to be extremely difficult, with the Republican occasionally agreeing, then backing off again. In the end, the conversation that extended Zelensky’s stay by an extra day finally took place. During the meeting, Trump expressed his willingness to work toward ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, aiming for a “fair settlement for both sides.” He emphasized that Ukraine has “been through hell.” He also voiced his support for maintaining good relations not only with Zelensky but also with Russian President Vladimir Putin, believing this could facilitate finding common ground. However, when reporters pressed him to clarify what he considered a fair outcome, he suggested it was too early to define, as the conflict remains a complex “puzzle.”
“..five consecutive quarters of sales growth since the fourth quarter of 2022, after struggling with sales decline for four consecutive quarters before that..”
• Raytheon Making Billions From Weapons for Ukraine (Sp.)
US defense contractor Raytheon, the world’s largest producer of guided missiles, has been profiting from Ukraine-related military supplies despite previously struggling with sales up until the start of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, a Sputnik correspondent’s analysis of the company’s earnings reports showed. Raytheon Missiles & Defense (RMD), the subsidiary specializing in missile production under the RTX Corporation, has produced the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) directly for Ukraine, while the Stinger and Javelin missiles manufactured by the company have been sent to the conflict zone since early 2022. As a manufacturer of air defense systems such as the Patriot and the missiles used by such systems, RMD has received new orders for these missile systems after such weapons were sent to Ukraine by other Western countries.
Russia has repeatedly stated that arms supplies to Ukraine lead to further escalation of the conflict and directly involve NATO countries in it. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would become a legitimate target for Russia. The United States and NATO are directly involved in the conflict, including not only by supplying weapons, but also by training personnel, Lavrov said. Raytheon has seen five consecutive quarters of sales growth since the fourth quarter of 2022, after struggling with sales decline for four consecutive quarters before that, the company’s latest earnings report showed. Details from the earnings reports of Raytheon illustrate how the US defense contractor has been able to make billions from continued US military aid to Ukraine and turn its business prospects around by taking advantage of the new demands.
Raytheon’s backlog, which refers to signed but unfilled defense contracts, also expanded from $63 billion at the end of 2021 to $77 billion at the end of the second quarter of this year, according to the latest earnings report. New orders for RMD began to dry up from the fourth quarter of 2021 with an 8% year-on-year drop, the company’s earnings reports showed. By the second quarter of 2022, RMD had experienced a third consecutive quarter of sales decline, with an 11% drop from the same period of the previous year. However, RMD’s new orders in the second quarter of 2022 had already begun to show signs of increasing demand for its products following the escalation of the military conflict in Ukraine in early 2022.
“In Russia, meat consumption is rising per capita to a level never recorded before in Russian history..”
• In The War Economy Russia Has Taught The Pigs To Sing (Helmer)
If you want to understand who is winning the American war against Russia on the Ukrainian battlefield, and also in the world’s commodity trade markets, you can start by calculating the life expectancy of a NATO-trained Ukrainian soldier on the front line, or of a NATO staff officer in a command bunker he thought was safe. Then you can check the life expectancy of a Russian pig. The losses of the former are Russia’s tactical gains; they aren’t yet victory in the war. But it’s the latter, the Russian pig who, upon turning into pork, is breaking through the enemy’s defences towards strategic victory of Russian economic power to capture a world market. This means defeat – unrecoverable loss of market share – for the hostile states led by the once powerful pork exporters, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Canada, and the US.
As the most recent European Union (EU) pig and pork slaughter data show, the war is pushing up the energy and feed costs of pig farming, and drastically cutting European exports of pork to the Asian consumer market, the biggest in the world. There, Russia’s strategic ally China has cancelled the closure of its market in effect for Russia since 2008, and simultaneously has begun pork trade restriction moves against Spain, Denmark and The Netherlands, the principal European exporters of pork to China. In trade war retaliation, China is also steadily reducing the volume and value of its pork imports from the US since 2021. Behind the Ukraine front, the test of who is winning the war against Russia is also who puts their money and their meat where their mouth is. In Russia, meat consumption is rising per capita to a level never recorded before in Russian history. At the same time, the country has become the world’s fifth largest pork producer.
From self-sufficiency in pork production in 2018 to the export of market surplus, this industry achievement has been based on direct and indirect state support measures, including retaliation against EU imports which followed the start of the EU’s anti-Russian sanctions in 2014. “Practically speaking,” says Yury Kovalev, “we no longer have imports, but not because this is closed, but because over the past fifteen years an entire industry has been created, production has grown every year, and we have almost completely abandoned import dependence.” Kovalev is general director of Russia’s National Union of Pig Breeders (NSS). Kovalev is also forecasting that Russian pork exports will soon capture about 10% of the Chinese import market – about 300,000 tonnes per annum – displacing the Europeans.
“This macabre and dark “new normality” is an antidote to the lies of International Law..”
• International Law Does Not Exist (Pacini)
The assumption of benign global hegemony, that economic and political liberalism was a silver bullet to transcend power politics, turned out to be a liberal illusion fueled by hubris. New international geometries have taken hold. NATO expansion predictably inflamed tensions with Russia as Moscow reasonably perceived it as an existential threat, while China’s simple economic rise became a challenge to U.S. global primacy. Globalization as a neoliberal, Westernized-centric process has become unsustainable, in fits and starts with the U.S. stock market crisis. The excesses of liberalism are now repudiated within the West and outside it, causing polarization within societies and the international system. In all of this, International Law has always been seen as a kind of “guarantee” above the parties, to be appealed to indiscriminately, a kind of neutral power that could settle disputes… or play in favor of the stronger.
Ipso facto, International Law in the twentieth century became United Nations Law, with the UN as the macroscopic entity capable of imposing its dominance. But this hierarchical advantage was not the subject of democratic discussion, let alone confrontation among the various world players: it was an arbitrary and unilateral choice, that of the United States of America, which enjoyed the advantage of victory in World War II, rapidly and effectively expanding its hegemony, both military, cultural, political and especially economic, through the extension of the dollar as the global currency of comparison. An intentional choice? Perhaps. A fluke of history? Equally likely. What is objectively detectable is that we have arrived at the present day with an American-centric International Law, with transnational organs deputed to various functions all reporting to the main Organization, headquartered in New York. Even the various European international institutions and courts have a dependence on Lady USA.
And we come to the present day From here it is easy to see why, today, we have a crisis of International Law and an obvious problem of trust in its so-called institutions. Equally complicated is the transition to an International Law of a multipolar character. Are the events themselves that have caused people to lose confidence in this branch of Law. For there is very little of “law” left. In Kosovo, NATO was allowed to do whatever it wanted, violating Serbia’s territorial sovereignty and creating the puppet “state” of Kosovo; the U.S. can “export democracy” with bombs by attacking in the Middle East whenever it wants, because it is done in the name of “civilization.” in Ukraine, human rights were valid until a few years ago, when the Kiev regime was put on trial for child trafficking and a fratricidal coup, then once the new “villain” was found magically those rights disappeared and the perspective was reversed; Netanyahu can safely make phone calls from UN headquarters and order a carpet bombing of a city in a country, declaring a war, without anything happening to him, despite the fact that he is a proponent of a genocide that has been going on ruthlessly for more than a year. This macabre and dark “new normality” is an antidote to the lies of International Law – or at least how we have been made to believe and practice it for a century to date.
“The U.S. may opt to remove Netanyahu”, as in the Democrats terrified of losing because of the Netanyahu cabinet’s war spiral.”
• Could Palestine Be The Catalyst For An Islamic Renaissance? (Pepe Escobar)
Of all the countless analyses across the lands of Islam about the profound significance of fateful Al-Toofan (Al-Aqsa Flood) on October 7, 2023, this one stands out: a cycle of conferences in Istanbul earlier this week, including October 7, titled Palestine: the Lynchpin of Civilizational Renaissance, linked to the Kuala Lumpur Forum for Thought and Civilization.Call it a Malaysia-Turkiye partnership: Southeast Asia meets West Asia, a graphic illustration of the multi-nodal world that will be congregating in less than two weeks in Kazan, capital of Muslim Russia, for the long -awaited BRICS summit under the Russian presidency. Significantly, the centrality of Gaza was not debated in Doha, Riyadh, or Abu Dhabi, all of which would have unlimited funds to host such discussions. Istanbul was a unique opportunity to compare insights by Osama Hamdan, representing the whole Palestinian Resistance; Numan Kurtulmus, the speaker of the Turkish Parliament; Hamas top diplomat Khaled Meshaal, speaking from Doha on the “strategic victory” of the Resistance.
And all that compounded by a strong message by Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, former Malaysian Prime Minister and president of the Kuala Lumpur Forum. Dr. Mahathir emphasized that a sound solution would be “a UN peace-keeping force in Gaza protecting them”. The main problem is the Ummah “not having an alternative to UN veto powers”. Hence “Muslim countries must team up – as there are no means of applying pressure to Israel.” Illustrating Mahathir’s call, Muslim-majority nations are responsible for only 6% of global GDP and 6% of investments, while harboring 25% of the world’s population. Mahathir boldly proposed, “we can deny our oil to the rest of the world” and “take back funds invested in dollar bonds, thus forcing the West to take action” in Gaza. Now try to convince MbS in Riyadh and MbZ in Abu Dhabi about it. “Focus on popular organizations. Forget about governments”
The redoubtable Sami al-Arian, Kuwaiti-born Palestinian, director of the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) at the Sabahattin Zaim University in Istanbul, and whose astonishing life story includes being persecuted and thrown in solitary confinement in the U.S. as a “suspected terrorist” summed up the impotence of Arab political elites when it comes to Palestine: after all the Arab world “is the weakest link on global terms” – with 63 military bases only in West Asia controlled by CENTCOM. And still, “what other cause can galvanize the whole world apart from Palestine?” Al-Arian stressed that Al-Aqsa Flood “exposed the Arab world”, as the destruction of Palestine was “imposed to make Israel the regional hegemon”. There is a glimmer of hope though: “Look at all those things that divide us. We should focus on popular organizations. Forget about governments.”
Al-Arian, who lives and works in Istanbul, tackled head on one of the key running themes of the conference: the complex relationship between Turkiye and the West: “Turkiye is with the West, basically. There is no 100% support for Palestinians. Many are still subject to notions of Orientalism.” He also evoked how 35 then future nations lived in peace within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, which spanned 35 million square kilometers. In Palestine, Al-Arian sees three possible scenarios ahead:
1.The continuity of “Netanyahu’s delusions”. There is “no evidence” that the U.S. is opposing any of them. There is “no deterrence apart from the Axis of Resistance.”
2. Denying these delusions is hard as “Israel has [Arab] regimes on its side. Yet Israel must be engaged on all fronts.” Palestine “is the symbol of all that is just”, and “not a symbol only for Palestinians.” It is imperative to “dismantle the Zionist structure, and Palestine cannot do it on its own.”
3.The third scenario is not so far-fetched anymore – considering the looming U.S. presidential elections: “The U.S. may opt to remove Netanyahu”, as in the Democrats terrified of losing because of the Netanyahu cabinet’s war spiral.
“The six-year proceeding is due to close by Christmas. By then it will have violated every rule in British court practice on the admissibility of evidence..”
• Timetable Announced For UK Novichok Trial In Kangaroo Court (Helmer)
The timetable for public hearings has been announced by the British government and its judge, Lord Anthony Hughes, to repeat the official allegations of Novichok attacks by Russian agents against Sergei and Yulia Skripal on March 4, then Dawn Sturgess on June 30, 2018. The first hearing will open on next Monday, October 14, in Salisbury, the Wiltshire county town where the Skripal attack first occurred. The hearings will then move to the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London. On November 25, a session has been scheduled for Hughes to hear police, intelligence agents, and government lawyers argue the agenda item, “Russian state responsibility”. That session will then be followed in early December by closing statements.
The six-year proceeding is due to close by Christmas. By then it will have violated every rule in British court practice on the admissibility of evidence. . No testimony by the Skripals has been allowed by Hughes. Instead, he has decided that the police, MI5 and Secret Intelligence Service will publish their version of what the Skripals said during interviews they were obliged to give without legal representation in 2018.
Libertarian
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2024
Benefit
The dog sensed what was coming but gave the benefit of doubt.
— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) October 11, 2024
Pup
Pup wanted to be close
pic.twitter.com/hShamievj9— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) October 11, 2024
Elk
What a magnificent Elk.
I liked this comment someone made when someone else called him Majestic – “I agree, shouldn't give out location, let them live in peace.”
Apparently he is a regular around that town and is very well liked.
Stay safe sir!! pic.twitter.com/2zjCY9E6AS
— PROTECT ALL WILDLIFE (@Protect_Wldlife) October 10, 2024
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
