Menu Icon

Debt Rattle February 24 2026

Feb 242026
 
 February 24, 2026  Posted by at 10:34 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  61 Responses »


Piet Mondriaan The red cloud 1907


• TRUMP Declares WAR On Euro CENSORSHIP (MN)
• EU Says Trump’s Tariff Workaround Violates Trade Deal (ZH)
• The Supreme Court has Ruled on Tariffs, but Who Will Ultimately Pay? (Turley)
• Bessent Signals No Retreat After SCOTUS Tariff Ruling (David Manney)
• AOC Has Instagram Meltdown. It’s a Sight to Behold. (Matt Margolis)
• AOC’s Ignorance Is No Laughing Matter (Stephen Soukup)
• Trump is Losing His Base – Mark Taylor (USAW)
• Obama’s ‘Gift’ Sticks Taxpayers With $200M+ Bill (ZH)
• CNN Finally Admits the Truth About Democrat-Run Cities (Matt Margolis))
• Trump is Netanyahu’s Puppet (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Judge Says Jack Smith’s Final Report on Trump Can Never Be Released (ET)
• British Police Take Former Ambassador Mandelson into Custody (Manney)
• The Putin Plan for Cuba and The Castro Family (Helmer)

 


 

https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2025573014155227301?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025580547527856295?s=20

 


 

 


 


Europe’s last hope before the curtain closes. These guys want to operate in darkness. Because they all, Starmer, Macron, Merz, have one thing in common: they’re painfully unpopular back home.

US State does what I’ve been doing (trying to do) for many years:: give people a peek behind the curtains.

• TRUMP Declares WAR On Euro CENSORSHIP (MN)

As European governments ramp up their assault on online freedom, the Trump administration is striking back hard with Freedom.Gov—a portal designed to equip European and British citizens with tools to shatter digital barriers imposed by overreaching bureaucrats. The move exposes the hypocrisy of so called “safety” laws that geofence truth, forcing websites to block users or demand ID, all while claiming to protect the public from their own thoughts. A growing number of websites have chosen to simply block users rather than comply with arduous censorship demands in response to Europe’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act, with many more hidden behind government-mandated age-verification making linking a real-life identity to internet use a prerequisite for access.


The U.S. government is launching a ‘Freedom.Gov’ website that will give British and European visitors the tools to access censorship-free parts of the internet they have been geofenced out of by their own governments in the name of public safety. The new initiative is the work of the U.S. State Department and led by Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who has been a key figure in bringing President Trump’s message of freedom to Europeans in recent months. Government insiders say the Freedom.Gov portal may feature a Virtual Private Network (VPN) tool to allow European users to bypass domestic controls and claims its use won’t be tracked.

A State Department spokesman is quoted as saying: “Digital freedom is a priority for the State Department, however, and that includes the proliferation of privacy and censorship-circumvention technologies like VPNs.” A placeholder website for the planned anti-censorship service is already active. The Freedom.Gov site first became active in January and was blank apart from the text “fly, eagle, fly”. Today, an updated landing page proclaims “Freedom is coming. Information is power. Reclaim your human right to free expression. Get ready.” In a crystal-clear message to the censorious British authorities cracking down on internet freedoms, the page also features an animated logo of Paul Revere on his famous 1775 midnight ride, warning the Minutemen of the approaching British troops.

The decision to launch the service will inevitably bring the U.S. into some sort of conflict with European capitals, given the pro-freedom move would force those governments to either defacto accept that their censorship laws will either be openly bypassed by their own citizens with the assistance of Washington, or to block Freedom.Gov, and clarify their opposition to the free dissemination of information.mThis puts Washington in the unfamiliar position of appearing to encourage citizens to flout local laws, without stopping to note this is, of course, not actually unfamiliar at all. The United States through the CIA and other agencies maintained a large network of censorship-busting initiatives through the Cold War using the latest technology of the time.

Among those efforts was Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Liberty, sending unfiltered news and other programming through high-powered broadcasts into the Soviet nations behind the Iron Curtain. This effort was something of a game of cat-and-mouse between the free West and the Communist East, with Soviet authorities attempting to block out the broadcasts with radio interference equipment of their own. In those Soviet countries, when the Western radio broadcasts did get through, those who tuned into them faced arrest “or worse” at the hands of the authorities. Today, the British government has already started to react to the use of VPNs to circumvent its new internet controls—imposed, it says, for the sake of public “safety”—and is moving to defacto outlaw them.

Pro-Freedom and anti-surveillance campaign group Big Brother Watch responded to the government’s plan to crack down on VPNs, saying: “The Prime Minister’s announcement that the government intends to restrict access to VPNs for under-16s represents a draconian crackdown on the civil liberties of children and adults alike. The only way such restrictions could be enforced effectively would be for VPN providers to require all users to undergo age-assurance measures.”

The group continues, “Having to provide ID or a biometric face scan to access a VPN utterly defeats the point of a technology designed to enhance privacy online. The ability to receive and share information absent state snooping is a vital part of living in a free democracy.” “There is a reason authoritarian governments in countries such as China, North Korea, Iran, and Belarus ban or restrict VPNs. Anonymity and enhanced privacy allow journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners, and dissidents to communicate securely,” they further urge. This latest escalation builds directly on the Trump administration’s earlier vows to counter British PM Kier Starmer’s censorship frenzy, where Under-Secretary Sarah B. Rogers warned that America would unleash its full arsenal against threats to X and free speech, treating the UK like Iran if needed.

Rogers stated: “With respect to a potential ban of X, Keir Starmer has said that nothing is off the table. I would say from America’s perspective, nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech.” It also extends Trump’s pattern of offering lifelines to UK and European dissidents, including asylum for “thought criminals” prosecuted for silent prayers or online posts challenging mass migration and gender ideology. nSources previously confirmed the White House was scouting cases, tying free speech erosion to Britain’s immigration failures.

Read more …

They don’t want transparency.

• EU Says Trump’s Tariff Workaround Violates Trade Deal (ZH)

Update (1715ET): Europe is now getting ‘legal’ over the whole thing – claiming that Trump’s new tariff workaround violates levels permitted in their trade agreement, Bloomberg reports. The European Commission, which handles trade matters for the bloc, told lawmakers Monday that the new global tariff will be added to levies that are already in place, according to Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee. The new cumulative rate means some goods would be above the 15% ceiling the EU and US agreed to in their trade deal.Under Trump’s new tariff program, some products including butter, plastics, textiles and chemicals would have levies above that 15% ceiling, according to people familiar with the commission’s assessment. The new global tariffs can stay in place for as many as 150 days.


* * * Update (9:40am ET): In response to the EU’s decision to freeze ratification of Trump’s landmark deal, the US president has come out swinging and on Truth Social threatened any countries that “play games” with the supreme court decision that they “will be met with a much higher tariff.” It just isn’t clear what the procedure for these much higher tariffs – aside from Section 122 which is limited to 150 days – will be now that IEEPA has been ruled unconstitutional.

Earlier: In the aftermath of Friday’s SCOTUS decision to reverse Trump’s tariff policy, one lingering question is what happens to the bilateral trade deals Trump struck with various countries (and which supposedly would lead to hundreds of billions of fresh investment into the US). Well, in the case of the EU we no longer have to wonder: {This] morning, the European Union said it would freeze the ratification process of its trade deal with the US and was seeking more details from the Trump administration on its new tariff program. Zeljana Zovko, the lead trade negotiator in the European People’s Party group on the US deal, said in an interview with Bloomberg that “we have no other option” but to delay the approval process to seek clarity on the situation.

The main political groups in the European Parliament say they’ll suspend legislative work on approving the trade deal on Monday, days after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s use of an emergency-powers law to impose his so-called reciprocal tariffs around the world. The center-right EPP, which is the largest political bloc in parliament, will be joined by parties including the Socialists & Democrats and the liberal Renew group to back freezing the process. According to Bloomberg, Bernd Lange – chairman of the parliament’s trade committee – called an emergency meeting later Monday to reassess the EU-US trade accord. He said over the weekend that parliament should delay work on the trade accord until the EU receives more clarity on the new tariffs. EU ambassadors will also meet Monday afternoon to discuss the US trade relationship.

Trump’s announcement following the court decision to impose a 10% global tariff, which he then increased to 15%, left many questions unanswered for American trading partners, stirring up more economic turbulence and uncertainty about the US policy. As a reminder, the deal struck last summer between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen would impose a 15% tariff rate on most EU exports to the US while removing tariffs on American industrial goods heading into the bloc. The US would also continue to impose a 50% tariff on European steel and aluminum imports. The bloc agreed to the lopsided deal in the hopes of avoiding a full-blown trade war with Washington and retaining US security backing, particularly with regards to Ukraine. Parliament had been aiming to ratify the agreement in March.

Read more …

“Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.”

• The Supreme Court has Ruled on Tariffs, but Who Will Ultimately Pay? (Turley)

Friday’s blockbuster ruling on tariffs was hardly welcomed by the Trump administration, but it was also widely expected. The Supreme Court clearly established in its 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not afford presidents authority to issue sweeping, unilateral tariffs like those imposed by President Trump over the last year. The justices fractured on other issues. And they left one issue conspicuously unaddressed: What happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars collected from these tariffs so far? Many of us predicted that the administration would lose this fight. That view was reinforced after oral arguments, when a majority of justices raised possible reasons why the president might not possess this power.


Then again, he does possess similar powers under other laws, which the administration has already announced he will use. Although Trump said he was “ashamed” of the conservative justices who ruled against him, their opinion is consistent with the conservative interpretive approach taken in prior statutory cases. The majority defended Congress’s core power over the purse, maintaining the balance among the branches of our tripartite system. There were good-faith arguments on both sides, but these conservative justices ruled regardless of the political or practical repercussions, based on what they believed was demanded by the Constitution. The most surprising votes were not the three conservatives but the three liberal justices, who historically have not been deterred by ambiguity in statutes in deferring to presidents.

They have repeatedly also found delegated authority in independent agencies without worrying too much about the separation of powers. Democratic politicians openly celebrated from the loss. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) seemed gleeful over the idea that the country will have to incur massive penalties, costs that could undermine the current economic growth figures. Newsom, who has led his state into a deep deficit and triggered an exodus of taxpayers, eagerly called for economic penalties for the country: “Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!”

In reality, the tariffs are not going away. Trump will just have to rely on less nimble laws, but he can pursue the same policies in the name of other causes, such as securing greater market access and other concessions from foreign governments. So what about “coughing up” those past tariff dollars? Newsom may ultimately be disappointed. Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.

Democratic politicians like Newsom are not likely to want to help Trump, even if that means wounding the national economy and the federal budget. But this may offer Republicans a unique opportunity to force such a vote. Do Democrats truly want to vote to give hundreds of billions back? There are already more than 1,000 claimants. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dealt with the problem directly in his forceful dissent. He criticized the majority for its silence on whether or how such refunds would be made. Most pointedly, Kavanaugh noted that the federal government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the … tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”

Read more …

“.. tariff collections will continue at the same level because the rates and scope remain consistent. The mechanism changes, but the dollars don’t,..”

• Bessent Signals No Retreat After SCOTUS Tariff Ruling (David Manney)

After the Supreme Court handed down a six-to-three decision limiting how President Donald Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose so-called Liberation Day tariffs, his critics pounced, declaring the strategy dead. Do they know President Trump? Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went on the air and made clear the administration isn’t backing down. One tool was whittled down, but the policy is still kicking. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration stretched IEEPA beyond its intended scope. While the statute allows emergency economic measures, the majority found that the tariff action did not fit the framework Congress had designed. The decision appeared to force surrender, but all it did was cause a pivot.


Bessent told Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo that tariff revenue wouldn’t stop, framing the ruling as procedural rather than authoritative. He said that the administration still has multiple statutory authorities to address trade imbalances and national security threats. The objective, he said, hasn’t changed: reduce trade deficits, protect domestic industry, and pressure the foreign governments that have been gaming the system. Bessent explained that the White House will move to Section 122 authority within days, as President Trump already announced a 15% global tariff, adjusting it over the weekend to maintain leverage.Section 122 allows temporary trade restrictions to address balance-of-payments concerns, and while formal investigations proceed, it remains in effect for 150 days.

Bessent said that the administration also plans to use Section 232, which addresses national security concerns, and Section 301, which targets unfair trade practices. Commerce Department reviews and United States Trade Representative studies will support those actions. Describing the shift as straightforward, Bessent argued that the Supreme Court’s decision clarified the boundaries and strengthened the administration’s footing under other statutes. “In a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo,” the secretary said. “Within three days, the President can put on the Section 122 10% global tariff. So, at Treasury for the full year 2026, we foresee no decrease in revenue,” he continued.

Some budget watchdog groups warned tariff revenue would fall. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, shared uncertainty about the long-term math, an argument Bessent rejected outright, saying that revenue projections remain intact under the new authorities. “Yes, so, Maria, let’s take a step back here. And Maya MacGuineas should be ashamed, and they should take the word ‘responsible’ out of her organization’s name,” Bessent responded. “Everything she told you was completely irresponsible, and look, where were they when the Biden administration blew out the deficit that we had a fiscal contraction last year? So she should be ashamed.”


Using the phrase “new authorities,” Bessent meant that different trade laws already on the books, not a fresh attempt at a supposed power grab. The administration plans to rely on Section 122 of the Trade Act for temporary tariffs, along with Sections 232 and 301, statutes written specifically for trade enforcement, giving the White House a firm legal foundation even after the Supreme Court narrowed the use of emergency powers. Bessent went on to say that tariff collections will continue at the same level because the rates and scope remain consistent. The mechanism changes, but the dollars don’t, while he pushed back against claims that tariffs worsen inflation or cause exploding deficits. Years of runaway spending happened long before these trade actions.

Read more …

“Everyone’s got this story wrong, that this is about me running for president. Global democracies are on fire the world over.”

• AOC Has Instagram Meltdown. It’s a Sight to Behold. (Matt Margolis)

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) traveled to the Munich Security Conference with big ambitions and came home with a reputation problem. The trip was supposed to bolster her foreign policy credentials ahead of a future Senate or presidential run. Instead, it turned into a masterclass in unpreparedness, and now she’s doing damage control in the worst way possible: a tearful late-night Instagram rant.


In the video, an emotional AOC, appearing to hold back tears, pushed back against critics who saw her faceplant in Munich, convinced she has no idea what she’s talking about. Her defense? It’s not her, it’s you, who’s the problem. “If you think that I don’t understand foreign policy because out of hours of discourse about international affairs, I paused to think about one of the most sensitive geopolitical issues that currently exist on Earth, I’m afraid the issue is not my understanding, but rather the problem is perhaps you’ve gotten adjusted to a president that never thinks before he speaks.” There it is. You can’t blame her for not knowing what she’s talking about; you’ve got to blame President Donald Trump.

Make no mistake about it, the Instagram video isn’t going to rehabilitate her, because the Munich footage still exists. And it was bad, in every sense of the word. When a panelist asked AOC whether the U.S. should commit troops to defend Taiwan if China attacks — a question any serious foreign policy thinker should be able to handle — she froze. What followed was genuinely painful to watch: “Um… You know, I think that, uh… This is such a, uh, you know, I think that this is a, um… This is, of course, a very long-standing policy of the United States, and I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point.” She rambled for several more seconds without saying anything approaching a coherent position. Taiwan policy has been a central pillar of U.S. foreign relations for decades. This wasn’t a trick question.

That wasn’t pausing to think; that was clearly her not having the faintest idea how to respond. Her wealth tax moment wasn’t any smoother. Asked whether she’d impose one as president, AOC giggled nervously before managing this: “I don’t think that, um, I don’t think that anyone, and that we don’t have to wait for any one president to impose a wealth tax. I think it needs to be done expeditiously.”Argentine politician Daiana Fernández Molero wasted no time dismantling that position with actual evidence. “You have the recipe that many Latin American countries applied many, many times; that is some relief in the short term, but ends up being a tragedy for the future,” Molero explained.

“It’s like a public expenditure, huge public expenditure, price controls, sometimes wealth tax, and you end up with the wealth going away, and you have just the tax, and you don’t have wealth anymore. That was something that Peronism did many, many times.”Molero continued, “So all these recipes create a cycle. Then you have this short-term relief, but then it goes with inflation, shortage, then you have more poverty, and the cycle goes and goes.”

Once again, AOC came away from an exchange looking like the dumb kid way out of her depth. So she did what any entitled brat would do: she called a reporter to defend her. New York Times journalist Kellen Browning publicly confirmed that AOC “gave me a call,” and his subsequent article dutifully suggested she faced a “potentially frosty reception” and that critics missed “the substance of her arguments.” AOC told Browning, “Everyone’s got this story wrong, that this is about me running for president. Global democracies are on fire the world over.”

The left-wing media ecosystem spent years building AOC into a political phenomenon, with protective coverage that kept her weaknesses hidden as much as possible. Munich stripped all of that away. Without friendly gatekeepers controlling the narrative, her lack of depth became impossible to disguise.If this conference was her 2028 audition, she bombed it. And no amount of teary Instagram videos is going to make people forget how badly she bombed.

Read more …

“.. in the United States, the most prominent Marxist theorists actually gave up on workers altogether as allies in the fight against capitalism.”

• AOC’s Ignorance Is No Laughing Matter (Stephen Soukup)

Over the past week or so, many on the political Right have understandably enjoyed a laugh or two at the expense of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, N.Y.). AOC went to the Munich Security Conference to provide “balance” to the Trump administration’s presence and to burnish her own credentials on the global stage. Instead, she mostly just made a fool of herself. Not only did she stutter, stammer, and offer a Kamala Harris-esque non-answer when asked about American interests in and obligations to Taiwan, but she also demonstrated a comically poor grasp of geography and a righteously ignorant understanding of history. In an effort to rebut and embarrass U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, AOC embarrassed only herself, showing that historical facts mean far less to her than identity-inspired fiction.


But while it’s inarguably fun to chuckle at and mock the ignorance of the smug congresswoman and presumed presidential aspirant, it is also important to acknowledge that her historical and political illiteracy extends beyond the superficial and touches on matters of real and critical importance. Notably, this purported champion of the working class does not know the history of working-class politics, does not understand the reasons for the collapse of the working-class-centered ideology, and, as a result, has never contemplated the dangers inherent in attempting to resuscitate that failed doctrine. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez has long emphasized her biography and working-class roots to enhance her political status—and justifiably so. Her childhood may not have been quite the struggle she pretends it was, but she nevertheless endured economic hardships—especially after her father’s death—and was unable to find employment commensurate with her education. She was, famously, a bartender and a cocktail waitress before her election to Congress and, as a result, has long fashioned herself a champion of the working class and its purported priorities.

Indeed, on her trip to Munich, AOC emphasized her affinity with the working class and admonished democratic nations to erect a bulwark against totalitarianism by focusing on workers, workers’ rights, and worker-centered politics. “It is of utmost urgent priority that we get our economic houses in order and deliver material gains for the working class,” the congresswoman said, “or else we will fall to a more isolated world governed by authoritarians that also do not deliver to working people.” She railed against large corporations and especially billionaires, insisting that they had to be stopped from “throwing their weight around” in domestic and international politics. In short, the good congresswoman used her trip to Munich to urge the workers of the world to unite, because, as she sees it, they have nothing to lose but their chains.

There’s only one little problem with AOC’s exhortation: it’s ridiculous. Indeed, it’s been tried . . . and tried . . . and tried. It doesn’t work. And when I say that, I don’t mean that socialism doesn’t work or that communism has been tried countless times before and failed every time. That much is obvious by now. Rather, what I mean is that the workers of the world don’t care about the rest of the workers of the world. They don’t like the idea of being divided into classes, and they don’t have any particular affection for their fellow laborers. They don’t dislike other workers necessarily, but they don’t see themselves as a monolithic federation sharing the same interests, needs, or political predilections. Truth be told—and this is the key to understanding the silliness of the whole “global proletariat” nonsense—even the Marxists long ago gave up on uniting the workers of the world. In fact, in the United States, the most prominent Marxist theorists actually gave up on workers altogether as allies in the fight against capitalism.

Read more …

“God drove him to his knees, and it was supposed to humble him, but in some cases, it made him worse.”

• Trump is Losing His Base – Mark Taylor (USAW)

Retired firefighter, Lieutenant Mark Taylor, author of the popular book “The Trump Prophecies,” predicted Donald Trump would become President five years before the 2016 Election. Many thought that was an outrageous prediction, but he was proven right. Taylor also looked like he got it wrong when he predicted Trump would be a two-term President. He was, once again, proven correct despite the four-year gap in his Administration. Now, Taylor is sounding the alarm that President Trump is losing the votes of people who gave him the biggest political comeback of all time. Taylor explains, “Here’s the prophetic warning: If you wait too late to act, the patriots are going to take matters into their own hands. . ..


There is video after video from patriots fed up as to how long it is taking to get some of this stuff done. I get emails and comments on social media, and people are feeling how hurt they are from the President. How they even feel betrayed and angry with this President because it is taking so long. Nobody has been held accountable in their eyes. I am telling you the perception of the patriots. . .. Trump is losing his base. I don’t want to see that happen. I want to see him succeed because if he succeeds, the country succeeds. There are certain things this President is doing that is hampering this process. He is waiting too long, and the patriots are getting ready to take matters into their own hands. No amount of military is going to stop this if it starts because right now, they are feeling hopeless.”

Yes, Donald Trump has done some very good things such as getting America out of the World Health Organization. Trump brought in trillions of dollars in investments and has begun removing millions of illegal aliens the Biden Administration let in with open borders. The Southern border is now closed, but the enemy is not just external, and it’s not only flesh and blood. Taylor says there is an enemy within and explains, “God is calling for a place of repentance, and that includes the people’s house, The White House. This includes who is in charge of the people’s house. . .. Susie Wiles (White House Chief of Staff) needs to be fired.

Taylor contends, “Paula White is a spiritual gatekeeper. The President has clairvoyants, psychics and remote viewers around him. He has intelligence people around him. His spiritual advisory board is completely combat ineffective in the spiritual realm. I believe Susie Wiles and her people are responsible for not only killing this presidency . . . but she has him going off track and going in a different direction, and she is responsible for killing the America First agenda. This is what a lot of patriots that I am hearing from are angry about. . .. If there is not a giant turnaround, I think we are going to hand it over to the Democrats (midterms in 2026) because the Republicans are not going to show up to vote because they lost all hope in the President.”

Taylor says, “Who has his ear is steering the President in the wrong direction. He has got to correct this at some point. He’s got to get rid of some of these people. You cannot empower the spirit of Jezebel the way Trump has and not be demonically influenced. He has to throw Jezebel off the roof and feed her to the dogs.” Taylor says he would advise President Trump to fire FBI Director Kash Patel, AG Pam Bondi, spiritual advisor Paula White and political advisor Susie Wiles just for starters. Please keep in mind, Wiles had a disastrous interview late last year with Vanity Fair where she said President Trump had an “alcoholic personality.” President Trump never drinks alcohol because he had an alcoholic brother.

In closing, Taylor warns, “You cannot have this stuff going on and expect God (The Father) to be in it. . .. God is showing me if Trump does not repent and turn back to God and start listening to God instead of his intelligence, the intelligence that is purposely trying to steer him off track, then God is showing me there is something coming for him. There is going to be a David moment, so to speak . . .. God took a child from David. I am not saying he’s going to do that. The assassination attempt was allowed. The bullet grazed his right ear. What is the right ear prophetic for? It is for what you are hearing now. He’s listening to the wrong people now. . .. God drove him to his knees, and it was supposed to humble him, but in some cases, it made him worse.”

Read more …

Send the bill to Reid Hoffman.

• Obama’s ‘Gift’ Sticks Taxpayers With $200M+ Bill (ZH)

When former President Barack Obama announced plans for his presidential center on Chicago’s South Side, he described it as a privately funded investment in the city that would give back to the community that shaped his political career. And while construction of the brutalist eyesore itself remains privately financed through the Obama Foundation, taxpayers are footing the bill for massive infrastructure costs. A review by Fox News found that state and city agencies have not produced a unified accounting of total public expenditures tied to the project’s surrounding infrastructure. While individual agencies have disclosed partial figures, no single office has reconciled those totals or clarified how they overlap.


At the time the project was approved in 2018, public infrastructure costs were projected at roughly $350 million, to be split between the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. Those estimates covered roadway modifications, utility relocations and related improvements necessary to accommodate the 19.3-acre campus in Jackson Park that nobody asked for. In July, the Illinois Department of Transportation said that approximately $229 million in state-managed infrastructure spending had been committed to the project. That total includes about $19 million for preliminary engineering, $24 million for construction engineering and $186 million for construction activities. A department spokesperson described the earlier $174 million figure as a preliminary 2017 estimate.

Now, Chicago’s most recent 2024–2028 Capital Improvement Plan lists more than $206 million allocated to roadway and utility work associated with the project. However, much of that funding is labeled as “state,” and neither state nor city officials have clarified how the figures relate to one another or whether they represent overlapping commitments. Fox submitted records requests to several agencies, including the Illinois Department of Transportation, Chicago’s Department of Transportation, the city’s Office of Budget and Management, the mayor’s office and Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration – yet, not one provided a consolidated, up-to-date accounting of total public infrastructure spending. The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor is reviewing whether agencies complied with state transparency laws in responding to the requests.

The Obama Foundation defended the project, reiterating that the center’s construction – whose cost has grown from early projections of roughly $330 million to at least $850 million, according to its 2024 tax filings – is being financed by private donations. In a statement to Fox, foundation spox Emily Bittner said the organization is “investing $850 million in private funding to build the Obama Presidential Center and give back to the community that made the Obamas’ story possible,” adding that the project is intended to catalyze economic opportunity on the South Side. Bittner, of course, didn’t address the infrastructure costs – which have been extensive.

Chicago’s 2024–2028 Capital Improvement Program lists $206,078,058 for “Obama Presidential Center & Jackson Park – Infrastructure Improvements,” with most funding labeled as state sources. (City of Chicago Capital Improvement Program) Cornell Drive, a four-lane roadway along the eastern edge of Jackson Park, was removed and traffic rerouted farther west. Utilities, including water mains and sewer lines, were relocated, and new drainage systems were installed. City and state officials have said the changes were necessary to manage anticipated traffic and visitor demand.The center occupies 19 acres of public parkland transferred under a 99-year agreement for $10, a decision that prompted legal challenges arguing that the arrangement was not in the public interest. Courts ultimately dis missed those lawsuits.

Though often described as a presidential library, the Chicago complex will not function as a traditional library operated by the National Archives and Records Administration. Former President Obama’s official records will be maintained by the federal government at a facility in Maryland, while the Chicago site will be operated privately by the Obama Foundation. The foundation also pledged to establish a $470 million endowment intended to protect taxpayers in the event the project encounters financial difficulty. According to previous reporting by Fox News, that fund has received $1 million in deposits. Who didn’t see this coming?

Read more …

“.. not only are there never results, but there’s never any accountability either ..”

• CNN Finally Admits the Truth About Democrat-Run Cities( Matt Margolis))

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria went off-script this week — at least by his network’s standards — and said the quiet part out loud: Democrat-run cities are a mess, and the politicians in charge either can’t or won’t do anything about it. Of course, this isn’t news to you, but for a CNN host to admit this is a big deal. Zakaria opened with Zohran Mamdani’s New York, calling it “a prime example of a problem Democrats seem unwilling to confront.” That’s a pretty remarkable admission from a CNN host, but I assure you, he was just getting started. “Blue cities are out of control,” he said, “promising more, spending more, delivering less, and pushing off the fiscal problems to some future day.”


He then turned to Los Angeles, and the numbers he cited are staggering. Zakaria noted that the city’s homelessness budget for fiscal year 2025-2026 alone totals roughly $950 million. Not the cumulative total over several years. One year. And what has all that money bought? He explained that the LA Homelessness Services Authority reported that homelessness increased by 9% countywide and 10% within the city in 2023. A 2024 AP account found that homelessness had surged by 70% countywide since 2015 and by 80% within the city. “All this amid public frustration, despite billions spent,” Zakaria said. Then came perhaps the most damning detail. An audit reviewed $2.4 billion in city homelessness funding and found that “officials could not reliably track where it went or what it achieved.” That’s right. $2.4 billion has just disappeared into the bureaucratic ether.

To make matters worse, not only are there never results, but there’s never any accountability either, at least not for the people running the city. Zakaria moved on to Chicago next. He noted the city has a mayor whose approval rating is “deep underwater” and pension obligations so enormous they will “surely bankrupt the city at some point.” That’s a pretty frank diagnosis coming from a guy on a network that spent years cheerleading for this very brand of governance. Then Zakaria asked the key question Democrats never ask: “What is the theory of good government here?” His answer was cutting. “If the answer is keep adding programs, the city will keep producing unaffordability, because unaffordability is what happens when government becomes a machine that grows faster than the society it governs.”

Zakaria continued, “Zohran Mamdani’s basic instinct is correct: focus on affordability, especially housing, but not by providing government subsidies. These only seem to have driven up the cost of rent, as subsidies naturally do.” Here’s where Zakaria went wrong. Affordability isn’t an instinct for Mamdani; it’s a talking point. His instinct is to subsidize. It’s not like he wasn’t upfront about this during his campaign. So all the affordability problems New York City faces are going to get worse under Mamdani. Heck, he’s already gone looking to Gov. Kathy Hochul to bail out New York City — a mere two months into his administration. That’s the pattern. Spend more. Get less. Blame someone else. Repeat.

Read more …

Trump throw nukes? I doubt it.

• Trump is Netanyahu’s Puppet (Paul Craig Roberts)

It seems clear that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has disrupted Trump’s negotiations with Iran about nuclear weapons by interjecting in the middle of the negotiations another demand- that Iran give up its missiles and its alleged proxy forces. Netanyahu’s demand is obviously intended to ruin the negotiations as the demand clearly would prevent Iran s ability to defend itself from Israeli attack. From the beginning Netanyahu has been determined to force the US to war with Iran, and that is the purpose of his demand that the deal with Iran includes the military disarming of Iran.


We see this in the news reports that the Trump regime is now considering whether the deal with Iran should also extend to Iranian missiles. Iran is willing to agree not to produce nuclear weapons, but cannot possibly agree to disarm itself of conventional weapons, especially after US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee recently acknowledged that Greater Israel is an ongoing Zionist project. If Iran has the Chinese battle control system that former British diplomat Alastair Crooke described, a US attack on Iran could result in an American defeat, the loss of aircraft carriers and US military bases in the area as well as heavy destruction of Israel. Why would Netanyahu expose Israel to this risk?

Could it be that he bets that an American defeat would lead to demand for revenge on Iran and the US would finally do what Israel wants and nuke the Iranian nation, thus removing Iran as a barrier to further Israeli expansion? Iran’s designation as a terrorist state and Iran’s alleged proxy forces are propagandistic claims used to justify a US military attack on Iran. As the world must know, the two terrorist states are Israel and the United States. Washington, for example, kidnaps foreign leaders of states, and Israel assassinates Iranian, Lebanese, and Yemeni leaders. Who has Iran assassinated ? What terrorist act is Iran responsible for?

The Israeli genocide of Palestine is reason enough for the Houthis in Yemen to oppose Israel. Israel’;s attempted expansion into Lebanon is sufficient reason for Hezbollah to oppose Israel. Perhaps Iran supplies them with weapons, but that doesn’t make them Iran s proxies. The US provides Israel with weapons. Does this make America an Israeli proxy? Insouciant Americans are unaware that Netanyahu and Washington are setting them up for a war that serves only Israel’s interest. Ever since Americans fell for the 911 narrative, they have been putty in the Israel Lobby’s hands, and their beliefs about the Middle East have been given to them by the Israel Lobby and it s many American associates. The prevailing ignorance can very easily produce a catastrophic war.

Read more …

“The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.”

• Judge Says Jack Smith’s Final Report on Trump Can Never Be Released (ET)

federal judge on Feb. 23 said that the final report on President Donald Trump compiled by a former special counsel shall not be released. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is based in Florida, said in a 15-page decision that she was granting requests from Trump and his co-defendants to keep part two of the report from former special counsel Jack Smith shielded from the public. Cannon said that Smith wrongly forged ahead with investigating Trump and others for allegedly violating federal law by gathering and retaining sensitive documents even after she ruled his appointment was unconstitutional and threw out the case.


“Rather than seek a stay of the Order, or clarification, Special Counsel Smith and his team chose to circumvent it, for months, by taking the discovery generated in this case and compiling it in a final report for transmission to then-Attorney General Garland, to Congress, and then beyond,” Cannon said. “The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel’s breach of this Court’s own order.” She added later: “While it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work, it appears they have done so either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial. The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) had appealed Cannon’s ruling, but dropped the appeal after Trump won a second term in office. The department also released part of Smith’s report just before Trump began his second term. The other part, which has not been made public, was not to be released, according to a January 2025 order from Cannon. Cannon announced in December 2025 that her injunction was set to expire in February this year. Trump and co-defendants said in filings on Jan. 20 that Cannon should permanently block the release of the other part of Smith’s report. Lawyers for Trump said Smith was illegally appointed, and all acts he undertook were thus void, so the release “would constitute an irreversible violation of this Court’s constitutional rulings in the underlying criminal action and of bedrock principles of the separation of powers.”

DOJ officials backed that position. “Put simply, Smith’s tenure was marked by illegality and impropriety, and under no circumstance should his work product be given the full weight and authority of this Department,” they said in a brief, adding later that making the second part of the report public would “lead to the public dissemination of sensitive grand jury materials, attorney-client privileged information, and other information derived from protected discovery materials, raising significant statutory, due process, and privacy concerns for President Trump and his former co-defendants.”

Read more …

Nothing to do with girls. That’s all just a cover.

• British Police Take Former Ambassador Mandelson into Custody (Manney)

Peter Mandelson built a career inside the highest levels of British power, but that career collided with a police investigation tied to Jeffrey Epstein. On Monday morning, officers with London’s Metropolitan Police arrested Mandelson on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Police transported the 72-year-old former British ambassador to the United States to a London station for formal questioning. Authorities also searched two properties linked to him in Wiltshire and Camden. Mandelson served as business secretary and twice held cabinet rank under Labour governments, later becoming the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.


That role placed him at the center of diplomatic strategy between London and Washington, while also placing him under scrutiny once the newly released Epstein files revealed how deep his association ran with the convicted sex offender. Officials removed Mandelson from his ambassadorial post in September, after the extent of his relationship with Epstein became public. He resigned from the Labour Party the same day the news broke that police had opened a formal investigation into whether he shared confidential government information, the reason behind today’s arrest. Mandelson hasn’t been charged, and he’s said that documents released by the U.S. DOJ didn’t indicate wrongdoing or misdemeanor on his part. He’s stopped talking in public since the beginning of the investigation.

Law enforcement works under a long-standing legal principle: evidence found by unlawful means can’t stand in court, and anything derived from it falls with it—fruit from the poison tree. The fallout from the Epstein files works similarly in public life: Names connected to Epstein don’t come out of the washer clean when associations become liabilities, and careers erode once those ties come to light. If he understood anything, Mandelson understood influence, spending decades navigating political power inside Westminster and abroad. Prime ministers relied on him to negotiate, strategize, and manage party operations. He easily moved between government offices and diplomatic leadership, and that access is now at the center of a criminal inquiry.

It’s rare for British police to arrest former cabinet ministers, which shows that investigators believe serious questions remain unanswered. Officials haven’t disclosed the exact nature of the alleged confidential material involved, confirming only that a former government minister was arrested in connection with an ongoing investigation into misconduct in public office. This circus shows that Epstein’s network extended beyond American shores, both politically and financially. British figures repeatedly showed up in released documents and flight logs, and each new disclosure reopened old wounds, forcing political leaders to confront uncomfortable connections. Mandelson’s arrest marks one of the most significant developments inside the U. tied to those files.

European royals, government officials, politicians, and others are losing jobs and titles over their connection to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. European law enforcement agencies are opening investigations based on recent troves of documents released by the U.S. government. …

Read more …

“This year we will mark the centenary of Fidel Castro’s birth, and we will do so together.”

• The Putin Plan for Cuba and The Castro Family (Helmer)

President Vladimir Putin will not run the gauntlet President Donald Trump has established around Cuba with the Russian Navy to escort Russian-flagged tankers delivering crude oil and petroleum products to Havana. When Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla sat down in the Kremlin on Thursday to ask for more “solidarity, firmly demonstrated by you, the Government of Russia, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the face of the tightening blockade of Cuba and the recent energy siege,” Putin responded enough is enough. He meant that solidarity with Cuba is one thing, but not at the risk of military conflict with the Trump Administration and its naval forces in the Caribbean.


This is Mikhail Gorbachev talking, responded the Kremlin security analysis medium, Vzglyad, not Nikita Khrushchev. “Please convey my best wishes to the President of Cuba and Army General [Raul] Castro,” Putin told the foreign minister. “This year we will mark the centenary of Fidel Castro’s birth, and we will do so together.” It is not the first time Putin has said there is nothing but historical memory to share between Russia and Cuba; and that he would trade Russia’s military positions in Cuba for its interest in business with the US. In a meeting with President George W. Bush on October 21, 2001, Putin had said he would remove the Russian military intelligence base in Cuba. “I don’t want to horsetrade or nickel and dime this thing or argue about who gets what,” Putin said to Bush in a recently declassified record. In the outcome that is exactly what Putin did – and the trade failed because Bush did not reciprocate.

In his meeting with Rodriguez, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was clearer in public what the Russian line means. “We call on the United States to show common sense and take a responsible attitude,” he said – “refraining from implementing its plans for a naval blockade of the Island of Freedom. We categorically reject the far-fetched allegations regarding Russia and Cuba, and cooperation between them, which is presumably threatening the interests of the United States or any other countries. All disputes should be settled exclusively through dialogue based on mutual respect and a balance of interests. We know that our Cuban friends are always ready for honest negotiations… All issues should be resolved solely through a mutually respectful dialogue aimed at finding a balance of interests. We know that Cuban friends are always ready for such honest negotiations. In turn, we will consistently continue to support Cuba, the Cuban people in protecting the sovereignty and security of the country.”

“I would like to reiterate our complete solidarity with our Cuban friends. I fully share the views on our relations and strategic partnership, which you [Rodriguez] have stated. I would also like to reaffirm the complete unacceptability of actions by the United States, which, as you have reminded just now, has adopted an executive order designating Cuba as a threat to US national interests. At the same time, the document says that this alleged threat is exacerbated by Cuba’s cooperation with Russia, which has been described in the document as a ‘hostile’ and ‘malign’ actor. We are confident that all states should define their national interests in a way that will include recognition of and respect for the national interests of all other countries.”

Read more …

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025925319882870883?s=20 https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2025615047423352928?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025707794658160837?s=20

 


 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle February 23 2026

Feb 232026
 
 February 23, 2026  Posted by at 10:52 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  60 Responses »


Edgar Degas Danseuse au Tutu Vert 1887


• JPMorgan De-Banked Trump Shortly After Jan 6th Capitol Chaos (ZH)
• Susan Rice Joins Call for a Revenge Purge If Democrats Re-Take Power (Turley)
• Trump Calls on Netflix to Fire Susan Rice (Matt Margolis)
• Europe To Recruit Migrants For “National Defense” (ZH)
• Sen. Kennedy Tells Us What He Thinks of AOC (Spencer)
• Scott Bessent Outlines “Multiple Tools” Now Deployed in Tariff Policy (CTH)
• Scott Jennings Drops Massive Truth Bomb About Supreme Court on CNN (Margolis)
• Mamdani Is Collapsing Faster Than We Thought (Margolis)
• CNN SLAMS Keir Starmer’s ATROCIOUS Ratings (MN)
• Starmer Appoints ‘Queen Of Woke’ As UK’s Top Civil Servant – Reform UK (RT)
• German Court Rules X Must Turn Over Data on Hungarian Govt Support (CTH)
• Hungary and Slovakia Push Back on Ukraine’s Oil Dispute (Manney)
• NASA Chief Blasts Boeing Over Botched Starliner Mission (RT)
• Investigation Exposes Cover-Up of Obama Center Taxpayer Scam (Matt Margolis)
• Is Tucker Carlson’s Career Toast Now? (Matt Margolis)

 


 

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2025224492558016784?s=20 Bessent gay https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2024998754667966960?s=20

 


 

 


 

 


 


On January 22 2026, the Epoch Times wrote: Trump Sues JPMorgan Chase Over Alleged Debanking . A month later, on February 22, new docs confirmed it all and they said: Documents Confirm JPMorgan Closed Trump’s Bank Accounts After Jan. 6 Capitol Breach . Also on February 22, Zero Hedge then cited the Epoch Times. see below.

We now know for double sure that one month after Jan.6, 2021, which is also right after his first presidential term, JPMorgan closed over 50 bank accounts tied to Donald Trump. Fankly, that raises more questions than I can answer. (Where do the contents go?) Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit. And he should win. Banks should not feel free to act on political whims.

• JPMorgan De-Banked Trump Shortly After Jan 6th Capitol Chaos (ZH)

New court documents released Friday show JPMorgan Chase told President Donald Trump a month after the January 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol that the bank was closing his accounts. The disclosure was made amid a $5 billion lawsuit Trump filed against JPMorgan and its CEO Jamie Dimon. JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, said for the first time late Friday that it cut off more than 50 Trump accounts in February 2021, shortly after Mr. Trump’s first term ended. The accounts included those for Trump hotels, housing developments and retail shops in Illinois, Florida and New York, as well as Mr. Trump’s personal private banking relationship that handled his inheritance from his father, according to letters filed to the court.


JPMorgan did not specify in those letters a specific reason for the mass account closings. In one unsigned note to Mr. Trump, dated Feb. 19, 2021, the bank wrote that he would need to “find a more suitable institution with which to conduct business.” The letter closed with, “Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter” – a phrase that President Trump often uses. As NYTimes reports, the President has maintained for years that his bank account closures were politically motivated, and a spokesperson for his legal team said the newest court documents are “a devastating concession that proves President Trump’ entire claim. [JPMorgan] admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm, the spokesperson said.

President Trump is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and its cohorts, and will see this case to a just and proper conclusion. the attorneys added. Mr. Trump’s lawsuit, which named Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, as a defendant, contended that the bank put Mr. Trump on a blacklist because it “needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views.” That echoed earlier complaints from Mr. Trump that Capital One similarly closed his accounts and that Bank of America refused to accept billions of dollars in deposits after the Jan. 6 riots. The bank told The Epoch Times over email it will seek to dismiss the claims. “Plaintiffs’ threadbare allegations do not allege sufficient facts to plead a claim,” the institution said.

JPMorgan told The Epoch Times last month that the case “has no merit.” “[JPMorgan Chase] does not close accounts for political or religious reasons,” JPMorgan previously said. “We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company.” “We regret having to do so, but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so.” These comments were made last month, days after Trump announced on social media his intention to sue the bank.

Since then, Trump’s lawyers have alleged in court documents that JPMorgan closed the president’s accounts because of its “‘woke’ beliefs that it needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views.” “In essence, [JPMorgan Chase] debanked Plaintiffs’ Accounts because it believed that the political tide at the moment favored doing so,” the lawsuit states. JPMorgan added it supports the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent the weaponization of the banking sector. There is still much legal wrangling to come. JPMorgan this past week asked that the case be moved from Florida state court, where Mr. Trump has had some success in litigation, to a federal court in New York.

Read more …

One scary lady.

• Susan Rice Joins Call for a Revenge Purge If Democrats Re-Take Power (Turley)

As Democrats plan for the possible takeover in the midterms and 2028 election, they are already openly discussing their push for radical changes in our political system, including packing the Supreme Court to guarantee that those changes are allowed. Many are also pledging trials, impeachments, and investigations of anyone who supported President Donald Trump in a purging of politics and government. The latest to join the revenge purge pledge is Susan Rice, Democratic powerbroker and top policy adviser to both President Barack Obama and Joe Biden.In an interview this week, Rice declared that supporters of Trump can expect the proverbial knocks on their doors:


“A very prominent public figure, who has served at nearly the very highest levels, once told me … ‘Revenge is best served cold,’ and the older I get, the more I see the wisdom of that.”She added: When it comes to the elites, you know, the corporate interests, the law firms, the universities, the media … it’s not going to end well for them, for those that decided that they would act in their perceived very narrow self-interest, which I would underscore, is very short-term self-interest, and, you know, take a knee to Trump. The promise to crackdown political opponents is hardly unexpected in this age of rage. Indeed, Democrats can point to the purging of the federal ranks, particularly at the Justice Department, as further justification for a tit-for-tat response.

Democratic politicians and pundits have been fueling the anger of their base with ludicrous claims that democracy is about to die since the 2020 election. They have now used anti-ICE protests to stoke the anger in the hope that it will return them to power in the midterm elections. Bravo star and liberal podcast host Jennifer Welch praised footage of a “No Kings” protester celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. After playing the clip, Welch laughed with joy and declared, “So listen up, Democratic establishment. You can either jump on board with this s—, or we’re coming after you in the same way that we come after MAGA. Period.”

The pledge for revenge purges is an obvious way to further motivate a mob. In my book, Rage and the Republic, I discuss how elected officials often try to enlist mobs to advance their political agendas — only to be consumed by the unrest they helped fuel. This yielding to a “mobocracy” was one of the critical dangers that the Framers sought to deter through protections against majoritarian tyranny. It is a history that figures like Rice are ignoring in the hope of riding this rage wave back into power. The fact is that history has shown that “it’s not going to end well” for establishment figures like Rice who believe that they can control a mob.

Read more …

“How much is she being paid, and for what??? Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

• Trump Calls on Netflix to Fire Susan Rice (Matt Margolis)

On Preet Bharara’s podcast, Obama’s scandal-scarred former U.N. ambassador promised that any corporation, law firm, university, or media outlet that “took a knee to Trump” will be targeted when the left is back in charge. “It’s not gonna end well for them,” she warned, casting basic engagement with the Trump administration as a kind of original sin that must be punished. And now President Donald Trump wants accountability. On Saturday, Trump called on Netflix to fire Rice. “Netflix should fire racist, Trump Deranged Susan Rice, IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social.


“She’s got no talent or skills – Purely a political hack! HER POWER IS GONE, AND WILL NEVER BE BACK. How much is she being paid, and for what??? Thank you for your attention to this matter.” In her interview with Bharara, Rice argued that major institutions are sensing a political shift and regretting their support for Trump. But that won’t stop the Democrats from settling scores aggressively. “If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are gonna, you know, play by the old rules, and say, ‘Oh, never mind, we’ll forgive you for all the people you’ve fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all, you know, the laws you’ve skirted,’ I think they’ve got another thing coming,” Rice said.

She pointed to redistricting as proof that Democrats are done playing nice. “Just like when Trump thought, ‘Okay, I’ll redistrict, and the Democrats won’t have the guts to play hardball,’ they’re gonna be surprised. Democrats have had a belly full, and we’re not gonna play by, you know, the old set of rules, when these guys are playing by a very different set of rules.” Rice made clear that companies that accommodated the Trump administration will face consequences — big tech, media, universities, and law firms. “There will be an accountability agenda,” she warned. She even urged businesses to brace for investigations. “They better preserve their documents. They better be ready for subpoenas. If they’ve done something wrong, they’ll be held accountable.”

The only companies that would avoid the wrath of vengeful Democrats would be the ones that were on the “right” side of history. “If they haven’t broken the law, good for them,” she said. “If they’ve done the right things, good for them. That also will be noted and remembered.” We all know what that really means: If they were loyal to the Democratic Party, they’re in the clear. Her message was blunt. “This is not going to be an instance of, you know, forgive and forget… the damage that these people are doing is too severe to the American people and to our national interest,” Rice said.

Read more …

Muslims will defend the Christian heartland. Yeah yeah. Europe will no longer be Christian. And that’s a big deal, because then it will automatically become Muslim. Yes it will. And only then will the original population start defending itself. Much too late. Now there will be blood.

• Europe To Recruit Migrants For “National Defense” (ZH)

Europe’s lack of military readiness has become painfully obvious in recent years, due largely to the war in Ukraine as well as the Trump Administration’s efforts to force NATO members to fulfill their basic obligations. Specifically, Russia’s successful use of attrition tactics against NATO supported forces in Ukraine has exposed a significant weakness in western military doctrine.New and cheap technologies (including drone technologies) are making large scale maneuver warfare obsolete. The era of super-weapons dominating the battlefield with minimal manpower is over. As was the case in WWI and WWII, troop strength and boots on the ground are once again the key to victory.


A Washington DC-based defense think-tank, Center For A New American Century (CNAS), has come to the same realization and suggests a novel (as well as predictable) solution: Exploit mass immigration from Ukraine and third world countries to the west as a resource to fill the persistent void in military recruitment numbers. Writing for Foreign Policy, the CNAS notes: “Closing manpower gaps may prove harder than writing bigger checks. The continent’s demographic crisis compounds the problem: Births in the European Union fell below 4 million in 2022 for the first time since 1960, shrinking the pool of potential recruits as geopolitical threats—chief among them, Russian aggression—demand larger, more capable forces…

The argument, of course, presupposes that Russia has any intention of invading greater Europe. There is no evidence that this is Vladimir Putin’s goal. However, the Russian bogeyman does make for a useful excuse to justify the development of a unified EU military force. The threat of war can also be exploited by European officials as a way to justify open borders and mass immigration from the third world. Immigration from Ukraine makes some sense – It is a legitimate war torn country and Ukrainians are close to the rest of Europeans in terms of cultural attitude. But, EU elites need a rationale for flooding the region with third worlders and war with Russia seems to be their ticket. The CNAS uses the “demographic collapse” claim as a catalyst.

“Ukraine’s grinding war of attrition has laid bare an uncomfortable truth: Emerging capabilities in the form of high-tech weaponry cannot substitute for boots on the ground. Soldiers, sailors, marines, coast guardsmen, and airmen are the backbone of national defense. Yet the European Commission estimates a 43 million reduction in the bloc’s working-age population by 2070…” “…Meanwhile, Europe continues to grapple with significant migration flows from Africa, the Middle East, and other regions. These arrivals, often young, male, and seeking better opportunities, represent exactly the demographic cohort European militaries desperately need. Many migrants arrive with valuable skills: language abilities, cultural knowledge of strategic regions, technical expertise, and, most importantly, motivation to prove themselves and build new lives.”

It should be noted that these kind of articles from think-tanks are not so much “suggestions” for future policy initiatives. Rather, they are propaganda pieces designed to promote policies that governments already intend to implement in the near future. A number of European countries have already begun the groundwork for recruiting migrants for national defense. Ireland just recently announced that their are reviewing a possible program to give fast-track citizenship to immigrants who volunteer to join the military. Irish leaders assert that this is necessary to boost defense capabilities, but they also argue that it is need to increase Ireland’s “diversity.” Several other European governments are looking at similar programs, including Germany, France and Spain.

Read more …

“But our plan for dealing with her, as I have said before, has always been ‘Operation Let Her Speak.’”

• Sen. Kennedy Tells Us What He Thinks of AOC (Spencer)

Sen. John N. Kennedy (R-La.) is easily the funniest guy in the United States Senate, and would be the most hilarious politician in all of Washington were it not for the wit who currently occupies the Oval Office. Of course, most of his competition in this regard is no competition at all, as politicians are historically likely to be people who take themselves altogether too seriously. Today’s Democrats in particular are some of the sourest, unpleasant, and humorless people on the entire planet, so weighed down are they with the noble and never-ending struggle against Orange Man Bad, borders, gender, sanity, and common sense. And nobody, and I mean nobody, takes himself or herself or ximself more seriously than the average leftist who thinks that he (or she or xe) is nobly defending — well, not exactly the nation, which they want to leave borderless and defenseless, but at very least all the people who think the right thoughts and check all the proper boxes for the correct candidates — from the spread of “fascism.”


It’s doubtful that even a tiny percentage of these po-faced, self-righteous, self-important clowns even know what fascism is, but whatever, dude. They’re still busy saving us from it, and one of our principal saviors is none other than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-The Queensboro), who recently went down in flames at the Munich Security Conference. After AOC sputtered and stuttered and hemmed and hawed and faked her way through an answer to a question about whether the U.S. should defend Taiwan militarily in the event of an attack from Communist China, President Donald Trump commented acidly: “Her performance was horrible. I was surprised, actually. I didn’t know she was stupid.”

One who did know that, however, was Sen. Kennedy, and on Friday, he didn’t hold back. “The Congresswoman,” Kennedy said as Charles Hurt of Fox News chuckled in the background, “is kind of like Vice President Kamala Harris, but with more bartending experience.” If you’d like a word salad with your beer, you’ll be happy to know that Kennedy was just getting warmed up.“She has never been accused,” Kennedy continued, “of being a policy maven. You put her in a presidential primary with Elizabeth Warren or Rahm Emanuel, they will devour her like a light snack.” The senator then added semi-apologetically: “I probably shouldn’t say this, but she can get me back.” No doubt about that, but can AOC be as funny as John Neely Kennedy? Not a chance? Will she even try, or just huff and puff about how evil Republicans are lowering the civil tone of our august legislative bodies? The smart money is on the self-righteous posturing.

Kennedy’s most uproarious jab came next: “Someone told me a joke today. They said Congresswoman Cortez announced today categorically that she is not a moron. And she went on to say she hasn’t even been to Utah, much less embraced their religion.” Buh-dum tiss! Kennedy then reiterated: “Now she can get me back, I don’t dislike the congresswoman.” And then he concluded with another zinger: “But our plan for dealing with her, as I have said before, has always been ‘Operation Let Her Speak.’ And so far, it’s working, and my message to my friend the congresswoman, is ‘You go girl! You just keep it up.’” Can we clone Sen. Kennedy? Can we get 52 more of him to fill out the ranks of Senate Republicans? Imagine the hilarity if we had 53 Kennedys instead of the likes of Thune, McConnell, Murkowski, Collins, and so many others. Not only would the legislation be better, but so would the laughs, and there’s a lot to be said for that.

Sen. Kennedy https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2025199354311520451?s=20 https://twitter.com/Jules31415/status/2025262073802858614?s=20 Read more …

There are so many options. Why did he pick the wrong one?

• Scott Bessent Outlines “Multiple Tools” Now Deployed in Tariff Policy (CTH)

Speaking to the Economic Club of Dallas, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlines what technical procedures the Trump administration will trigger now to retain tariff authority. As anticipated Bessent outlines section 232 tariffs, section 301 tariffs, and Section 122 tariffs. WATCH (prompted):


Section 232 [Steel and Aluminum examples] of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) authorizes the President to impose trade restrictions—such as a tariff or quota—if the Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that imports of a good “threaten to impair” U.S. national security. {SOURCE}

Section 301 tariffs are a trade enforcement mechanism established under the Trade Act of 1974. They allow the U.S. government to impose tariffs on imports from countries that are found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts investigations to determine if a country is violating trade agreements, and if so, it can impose tariffs as a corrective measure {SOURCE}

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. This authority can be exercised without prior congressional approval for a limited duration of 150 days. After this period, any tariffs must be extended by Congress. {SOURCE}

Read more …

“This is a properly functioning government today.

• Scott Jennings Drops Massive Truth Bomb About Supreme Court on CNN (Margolis)

Whatever you think about the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday on tariffs, the ruling was a blunt reality check for the Democrats, whose rhetoric about the high court has been vicious in recent years. On CNN’s NewsNight, host Abby Phillip was walking through the financial fallout from a court ruling, citing a CBO report that found U.S. businesses absorb about 30% of import price increases, while consumers bear the remaining 70% — with the net effect pushing consumer prices up by roughly 95 percent of the domestically borne tariff costs. Inflation has remained low and stable under President Donald Trump, but whatever. The left loves to push their narrative regardless of the facts. Scott Jennings promptly called out her inconsistency.


“Well, which is it?” he said. “You said all of it was passed through to the consumers. You said that most of it was absorbed by some of the companies. It sounds like maybe it might be a little bit of both.” While Phillip suggested refunds should mirror how the tariffs were collected, Jennings predicted a bureaucratic nightmare, warning of massive sums of money at stake and years of litigation likely to follow. Then Jennings shifted gears entirely, and this is where things got interesting.

“I’ll just say, you know, politically, today, you know, it was a big breaking news day, but I just think we ought to acknowledge something,” he said. “This is a properly functioning government today. The president of the United States, the head of the executive branch, made a policy decision. The Supreme Court, it renders legal opinions about these kinds of decisions, made a decision, they said, you can’t do that. The president of the United States said, ‘Okay, I agree, and I will acknowledge your decision. I’m going to use a different statute to try to do what I want to do.’ This is properly functioning government.”

He wasn’t done. Jennings went straight at the media narrative that has dominated coverage of this Supreme Court for the past two years — the one that cast the court as essentially a rubber stamp for whatever Trump wanted.”For every Democrat and every media person that has gone on for the last year or two about how this Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of Donald Trump, that it’s not independent, that it does whatever he says to do, obviously, that narrative was obliterated today.”

He drove it home: “So, to me, I thought this was actually — I thought the ruling was sound. I think the president is sound to try other statutes. And I think the narratives about the court not being independent and the president not obeying the court were totally blown up today.” How can you argue with that logic? You can’t. Democrats have become so obsessed with the narrative that the court has been a rubber stamp for Trump; they’ve literally considered packing the court because of this narrative. Frankly, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have shown far more independence than any of the leftists on the court.

Read more …

Wait till he starts raising taxes.

• Mamdani Is Collapsing Faster Than We Thought (Margolis)

You can’t say we didn’t warn New York what was going to happen if it elected Zohran Mamdani, but I gotta say, I don’t think anyone predicted it would start collapsing so quickly. But, alas, it has. That socialist utopia that Mamdani was supposed to deliver has instead turned into a slow-motion fiscal catastrophe a mere two months in — and even the liberal media is starting to notice. Mamdani unveiled a $127 billion budget for fiscal year 2027 this week — a staggering $5 billion increase over the prior year. But what’s $5 billion between socialists, right?


To put that into perspective, Mamdani’s proposed budget is actually larger than the budgets of 47 U.S. states, including Florida, which has nearly twice the population. And somehow, it still isn’t enough. The city is staring down a $5.4 billion deficit, with the real gap potentially closer to $12 billion when you do the actual math. So what was his plan? Tax someone else. Mamdani went straight to Albany looking for a handout, demanding that Gov. Kathy Hochul raise taxes on the “ultra-wealthy” and the most profitable corporations. When Hochul told him to pound sand and cut spending instead, he obviously couldn’t do that, and now he is looking at saddling homeowners with a 9.5% property tax hike.

“Faced with no other choice, the city would have to exercise the only revenue lever fully within our own control,” he said. “We would have to raise property taxes. We would also be forced to raid our reserves. To balance the budget as required by law, our preliminary budget takes the only path within our control: the second path. The options of the second path are the options of last resort. Options that we will only employ if there is no other means of arriving at a balanced budget.” As a New York resident, I can say there’s finally something I can agree with Hochul on. Why should the rest of the state subsidize Mamdani’s socialist experiment in New York City?

Let it foot the bill for the mistake of electing Mamdani. Remember, this is the guy who campaigned on affordability and making the rich “pay their fair share,” and now he’s already in a position where he has to tax regular people to cover the costs of his promises. This budget crisis he’s facing two months into his term comes on top of him taking heat for poor trash cleanup and snow removal on his watch. Two months into the job, and the basics aren’t getting done. Conservatives warned about exactly this before last year’s election. We said a self-described democratic socialist running one of the world’s most financially complex cities was a recipe for disaster. Voters in New York went ahead anyway. Now the city faces the reckoning that was entirely predictable.

“No one in New York is ambitious enough to dramatically reshape city government, and residents either vote for class warfare or vote with their feet,” the Washington Post editorial board observed. “A reckoning will have to come eventually. The question is how bad it gets before reality sets in.” That question may answer itself sooner than anyone expected. “No one in New York is ambitious enough to dramatically reshape city government, and residents either vote for class warfare or vote with their feet,” the Washington Post editorial board observed. “A reckoning will have to come eventually. The question is how bad it gets before reality sets in.” That question may answer itself sooner than anyone expected.

Read more …

The “leaders” of the large Eropean nations all poll in the sewers..

• CNN SLAMS Keir Starmer’s ATROCIOUS Ratings (MN)

Keir Starmer’s approval ratings have plunged to historic lows, with even CNN calling them “absolutely ATROCIOUS” and noting that President Trump appears “downright like Abraham Lincoln” by comparison. This brutal takedown highlights how Starmer’s globalist policies are alienating Brits across the board. As the Labour leader clings to power, his war on free speech and commitment to protecting illegal immigration is fueling a backlash that could spell the end for his regime. With polls showing just 20% approval, Starmer’s grip on Number 10 looks increasingly tenuous. The Overton News clip, which has gone viral on X, captures CNN’s scathing assessment of Starmer’s popularity nosedive.


In the segment, analyst Harry Enten declares, “The se numbers are absolutely ATROCIOUS! I mean, you never see numbers like this in the United States of America.” Focusing on the dire stats, Enten points out, “Britons who like Keir Starmer, look at this — overall it’s just 1 in 5! It’s just 1 in 5, 20%!” Even within his own ranks, support is crumbling: “His OWN party, Labour, he’s just at 52% there.” The commentary escalates, revealing, “I’ve even seen numbers with satisfaction in the TEENS — and this is actually HIGHER than the lowest.” The most striking line compares Starmer unfavorably to Trump: “You know, we always talk about Donald Trump being unpopular in this country — but Donald Trump looks downright like Abraham Lincoln compared to Keir Starmer’s numbers at this point!”

The latest YouGov survey from February 2026 shows Starmer’s net favourability at -47, with only 22% viewing him positively against 69% unfavorably. That’s an improvement from January’s -57, but still abysmal for a sitting PM.Other trackers paint an even grimmer picture. Ipsos reported satisfaction in the teens late last year, aligning with CNN’s observations. Opinium’s February poll pegs his net approval at -44, with over half the public calling for his resignation. Starmer’s woes stem from policies that prioritize globalist agendas over British interests. Mass immigration continues unchecked, straining public services while borders remain porous. Economic missteps, like burdensome regulations on businesses, echo the failures of socialist experiments.

Recall our earlier coverage where a former aide to Starmer revealed how a “stakeholder state” – an unelected network of insiders, NGOs, and civil servants – effectively controls the UK government. Paul Ovenden described this “political perma-class” as diverting power from voters to elite priorities, wasting resources on fringe issues while ignoring secure borders and sovereignty. This shadowy influence explains Starmer’s disconnect from the public, leading to approval ratings that rival the worst in postwar history. Historical comparisons show that every UK PM with similar low ratings either lost big or resigned before the next election. Adding fuel to the fire is Starmer’s aggressive stance against free expression. Threats to ban platforms like X over AI-generated content have drawn international condemnation.

Read more …

“Romeo set out plans for civil servants to spend around 20% of their working hours on diversity objectives such as encouraging workers to display their preferred pronouns and “recruiting non-binary staff,”

• Starmer Appoints ‘Queen Of Woke’ As UK’s Top Civil Servant – Reform UK (RT)

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has appointed the “Queen of Woke” as his new cabinet secretary, Reform UK party spokesperson Zia Yusuf wrote on X on Friday. Antonia Romeo’s elevation to the UK’s most senior civil servant position is the “embodiment of all that’s wrong” with the current establishment, Yusuf argued. While heading the Department for International Trade (DIT), “she bombarded staff with weekly emails pushing Transgender Awareness Week, Bi Visibility Day, and even recommended watching films about trans parenthood,” he claimed. During her time working in the Home Office, “65,000 illegal migrants have crossed on her watch,” he said.


During her stint at the DIT, Romeo set out plans for civil servants to spend around 20% of their working hours on diversity objectives such as encouraging workers to display their preferred pronouns and “recruiting non-binary staff,” the Telegraph reported on Friday, citing internal documents. She also reportedly instructed staff to join a “gender non-conforming book club” as part of their corporate performance review. Starmer has argued that Romeo is the “right person” for government to deliver a “period of national renewal.”

Only 15% of Britons approve of the prime minister’s job performance, according to an Ipsos poll from last month. His approval ratings have been battered by dissatisfaction with his handling of the ongoing migrant crisis, a surge in arrests related to comments made online, the cost-of-living crisis, and the resurgence of the Pakistani rape gang scandal. Most recently, revelations emerged that Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US despite knowing of his ties to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer has maintained that he “was lied to” during the vetting procedure.

The waning popularity of the prime minister’s Labour Party is expected to culminate in major losses to Reform at the upcoming local elections, according to projections from the pollster ElectoralCalculus. On Monday, Starmer’s government reversed its plans to postpone the elections until next year after a legal challenge from Reform.

Read more …

“This effort against PM Orban by the European Union is part of the reason why Secretary of State Marco Rubio was so strong in his words of appreciation and support for Orban during his recent visit to Budapest…”

• German Court Rules X Must Turn Over Data on Hungarian Govt Support (CTH)

The European Union has a major targeting effort against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, an ally of President Trump who does not support giving additional funding to the Ukraine war effort. Hungary is having national elections in April. Previously, USAID Administrator Samantha Power spent considerable time in Hungary organizing activist groups to conduct operations against the government {2023 – Go Deep}. Last week a German based NGO called Democracy Reporting International, won a ruling from a Berlin judge to force the X platform to turn over data related to support for Viktor Orban and the government of Hungary.


All of this opposition to Prime Minister Orban seems to be coordinated by quasi government agencies on behalf of Brussels and their interventionist intentions. We may remember it was also information from German intelligence, that was behind the nullification of the Romanian first-round election. However, Viktor Orban is fighting back and refusing to approve the funding of the Ukraine war despite the massive pressure campaign from inside the European Union.

As noted by Hungarian Minister Zoltan Kovacs, “Many have asked how Hungary can block the €90 billion Ukrainian war loan if we are not participating in it. clarified that the loan does not affect Hungary and does not entail any financial commitment for us. As Hungary is not part of the cooperation, in most of the decision-making procedures we do not even vote. However, he pointed out that for the scheme to function, the EU’s seven-year budget guarantee rules must be amended – and this requires the approval of all 27 member states, not only the financing member states. We are now blocking this decision, without which the war loan cannot be disbursed.”

https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/2025284661853782466?s=20

(Via Politico) – A court in Germany on Tuesday ordered Elon Musk’s social media site X to hand over data related to the upcoming election in Hungary to researchers for scrutiny. The court in Berlin ruled in favor of rights group Democracy Reporting International in its bid to access data to research influence campaigns and disinformation in the election. The group took its case to court after X in November refused its data access requests. The European Union’s rules for social media platforms, the Digital Services Act, obliges big online platforms like X to grant external researchers access to data to scrutinize how platforms handle risks, including election interference. The European Commission in December fined X €40 million for breaching that obligation, as part of a €120 million levy.

This effort against PM Orban by the European Union is part of the reason why Secretary of State Marco Rubio was so strong in his words of appreciation and support for Orban during his recent visit to Budapest.

RUBIO: “The President has an extraordinarily close relationship to the prime minister. He does. And it has had tangible benefits in our relationship. I’m not going to speculate about the future. What happens in this country is up to the voters of this country to determine and decide, and we love the people of Hungary. But I’m not – but there’s no reason to sugarcoat it. I’m going to be very blunt with you. The prime minister and the President have a very, very close personal relationship and working relationship, and I think it has been incredibly beneficial to the relationship between our two countries.” {Source – Transcript}

Read more …

When will the EU implode?

• Hungary and Slovakia Push Back on Ukraine’s Oil Dispute (Manney)

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico delivered a blunt warning, saying Slovakia would halt emergency electricity exports to Ukraine unless Kyiv restored Russian oil transit through Ukrainian territory, setting a firm deadline of Feb. 23. The dispute centers on the Druzhba pipeline, which still supplies Russian crude to parts of Central Europe. Russian forces struck Ukrainian energy infrastructure in late January, an attack that damaged equipment tied to the Druzhba system in western Ukraine. The flow of oil to Slovakia and Hungary stopped that same day. mUkrainian officials blamed Moscow and offered alternative routes, including the Odesa-Brody pipeline and maritime shipments.


Fico responded by declaring a state of emergency in Slovakia’s oil sector, saying he would instruct SEPS, Slovakia’s state grid operator, to suspend electricity deliveries to Ukraine if oil transit didn’t resume. Slovakia supplied roughly 18% of Ukraine’s record electricity imports in January, and doubled its support compared with the previous year. Oil transit to Slovakia and Hungary has been disrupted since late January after a Russian strike hit the Druzhba pipeline, a key route carrying Russian crude to Central Europe. Ukraine’s pipeline operator said this week that the Jan. 27 attack damaged critical infrastructure and that repair works are ongoing.

In a letter to the European Commission, Ukraine’s embassy to the EU proposed using the Odesa–Brody pipeline or maritime routes as temporary alternatives to supply Hungary and Slovakia while repairs are completed. Fico accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of treating Slovakia as a “hostile country,” saying Kyiv first halted gas flows, costing Slovakia €500 million annually, and has now stopped oil supplies, causing further losses. He also defended his decision to refuse Slovakia’s participation in the EU’s planned €90 billion military loan for

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó escalated the pressure at the European level by blocking a major EU financial package for Ukraine that required unanimous approval. Budapest tied its position directly to the restoration of oil transit through Druzhba. It’s through that route that most of Hungary’s oil supply from Russia is delivered.When the EU adopted its 2022 oil embargo against Russia, Hungary and Slovakia both secured exemptions. Since then, Orbán has delayed or opposed several sanction packages and has resisted long-term funding commitments, while Fico shifted Bratislava away from the prior government’s strong military backing of Ukraine.

Disputes over gas transit agreements in late 2024 also strained relations. Kyiv ended certain transit agreements when contracts expired, increasing pressure on downstream countries that still rely on Russian supply routes. Each confrontation reinforces the same pattern: energy needs still drive national policy, even during wartime. Ukrainian officials labeled the moves as political blackmail, arguing that the infrastructure damage resulted from Russian attacks and that repairs and legal transit options were still under discussion. Officials in Kyiv also noted that only a handful of EU member states still import significant volumes of Russian oil.

Read more …

Boeing is gone. But it’s a big bloated corpse.

• NASA Chief Blasts Boeing Over Botched Starliner Mission (RT)

NASA chief Jared Isaacman has slammed Boeing for failures that plagued the botched debut mission of its first crewed spaceship, Starliner, which left two astronauts stranded for nine months last year. A billionaire private astronaut and close associate of SpaceX founder Elon Musk, Isaacman, who was appointed NASA administrator two months ago, also offered a blistering critique of the agency’s previous leadership, claiming that its decision-making risked creating “a culture incompatible with human spaceflight.” The remarks were made at a press conference on Thursday during the release of a sweeping report on the Starliner mission, which saw two astronauts, Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, stuck in space for nine months instead of the planned one week.


The capsule returned empty in September 2024 while the crew came home on a different vehicle in March 2025.The report states the loss of control during the capsule’s rendezvous with the ISS constitutes a Type A mishap – the most serious category of anomaly. It identifies critical design flaws in Boeing’s spacecraft, presenting 61 recommendations to address the issues before any future crewed Starliner mission. It also exposed management failures, stating that the mission “was marked by chaotic meeting schedules, unclear roles, and communication breakdowns.” “Mistrust between NASA and Boeing was intensified by selective data sharing, perceived favoritism, and inconsistent transparency,” the report added.

Boeing is facing public scrutiny over numerous safety issues and incidents involving its commercial aircraft and repeated delays in delivering key government contracts. Despite its troubles, the US government continues to contract with the company because NASA has a strategic goal to maintain two independent American systems for transporting astronauts to the ISS. SpaceX, the agency’s other partner, has also experienced technical issues affecting ISS operations, including delayed astronaut returns and aborted missions.

With both US contractors facing challenges, Russia remains the only other country capable of independently transporting people and cargo to the ISS. While Western sanctions over Ukraine targeted Russia’s aerospace industry, space cooperation was deliberately exempted to keep the station operational. Last week, Isaacman publicly stated his desire to meet with Roscosmos head Dmitry Bakanov and expressed interest in attending the launch of the Soyuz MS-29 mission from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, scheduled for the summer of 2026.

Read more …

“.. leaving taxpayers high and dry and putting them on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to support the ugliest building in Chicago,”

• Investigation Exposes Cover-Up of Obama Center Taxpayer Scam (Matt Margolis)

Barack Obama promised Chicago a “gift” with his Obama Presidential Center. Instead, he delivered yet another boondoggle, buried in secrecy, with missing money, and stonewalling straight out of a Chicago corruption playbook. When Obama got approval to build his presidential center in Jackson Park, he vowed the project would be privately funded. Every penny, he said, would come from donations to his foundation. Taxpayers, he insisted, wouldn’t be on the hook. That was the sales pitch — and like so many Obama promises, it’s proven to be fiction.


The Obama Foundation may be paying for the building itself, but taxpayers have been secretly shouldering hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden infrastructure costs. Roads were torn up, utilities relocated, and parkland reshaped — all to serve Obama’s monument to himself. Cornell Drive, a major four-lane roadway that once ran along the park’s lagoon, has been erased so Obama’s massive campus could dominate the landscape. This wasn’t just a minor tweak to city planning. It was a taxpayer-funded overhaul of a historic public park — one that Obama’s team couldn’t have pulled off without Chicago and Illinois residents footing the bill.

Back in 2018, officials estimated public infrastructure costs at $350 million. Fast forward to today, and that number is almost meaningless. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) now admits to roughly $229 million in “state-managed spending.” Chicago’s records show another $206 million linked to the same project. No one in city or state government will say how those figures line up — or whether the total cost is far higher. And if you don’t think there’s something scandalous going on, then why are all the agencies involved being tight-lipped about it?

Fox News Digital filed Freedom of Information Act requests with IDOT, Chicago’s Department of Transportation, the Office of Budget and Management, Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office, and Governor J.B. Pritzker’s administration. Not one produced a complete accounting of public spending. IDOT offered vague numbers. The city stalled and refused to release records. Pritzker’s office contradicted itself, then stopped responding entirely. OBM even admitted it had “no responsive records” — an absurd claim for the agency that manages the city’s capital budget.

This is a coordinated cover-up, plain and simple. The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor is now investigating whether multiple agencies violated the state’s open records laws. But you don’t need a court order to see what’s going on. Obama’s so-called “gift” turned into a taxpayer-financed vanity project — protected by the same political machine that made Chicago famous for corruption.

To make matters worse, Obama’s promised $470 million “endowment” to shield taxpayers in case the foundation ran out of cash has barely materialized. The fund has just $1 million in deposits — one-fifth of one percent of what was pledged. “Illinois Republicans saw this coming a mile away. Now, right on cue, Illinois Democrats are leaving taxpayers high and dry and putting them on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to support the ugliest building in Chicago,” Illinois GOP Chair Kathy Salvi told Fox News Digital. “Illinois’ culture of corruption is humming along with pay-to-play deals to their allies and friends while lying to Illinois voters.”

Read more …

Strange stories.

• Is Tucker Carlson’s Career Toast Now? (Matt Margolis)

Tucker Carlson just had one of the most embarrassing weeks in recent media memory. In the span of a few days, he fabricated a detention story, spread a debunked antisemitic smear about Israel’s sitting president, and then had to crawl back with an apology, as the public watched the wreckage of his career unfold in real time. Last week, Carlson flew into Ben-Gurion Airport on a private jet to record an interview with U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee. He never left the airport. Critics noted the obvious irony: a man who lectures his audience about Israel couldn’t bring himself actually to set foot in the country. After the interview, Carlson claimed that airport security had “hauled” his executive producer into a side room, seized his team’s passports, and demanded to know what was discussed with Huckabee.


That story fell apart almost immediately. The Israel Airports Authority stated that Carlson was “politely asked a few routine questions, in accordance with standard procedures applied to many travelers,” and that the conversation took place in a VIP lounge specifically to protect his privacy. The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem confirmed his group “received the same passport control questions that countless visitors to Israel” receive. Then, leaked security footage surfaced showing Carlson smiling, hugging, and posing for photos with airport staff. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett called Carlson a fraud and said he “fabricated a tale about being supposedly harassed by our security forces.”

The detention story was bad. What came on Friday was worse. Carlson released the Huckabee interview and used it to launch a series of outlandish claims and accusations. He called Israel “probably the most violent country on earth,” questioned its right to exist, accused it of controlling American foreign policy, and declared it a police state. He claimed Netanyahu believes in “blood guilt” — that he punishes not just wrongdoers but their entire bloodlines — even though Netanyahu has never said anything of the sort. His claim that “Prime Minister Netanyahu has way more influence over American foreign policy than Americans do” echoed antisemitic tropes that have circulated for decades.

Then came the Epstein bomb. Carlson repeatedly pressed Huckabee about Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s supposed connection to Jeffrey Epstein’s island. “The current president of Israel, whom I know you know, apparently was at ‘pedo island,'” Carlson said on air. Huckabee said he was unaware of any such connection. And for good reason — there isn’t one. Herzog appears in the Epstein files only through news articles that ended up in Epstein’s emails. Carlson was basing his allegation on a fake, AI-generated image that circulated online after the Epstein files were released.

After Huckabee learned the claims were false, he wrote on X that Carlson’s allegations “could be the stuff of libel lawsuits” and that “it was hard to follow Tucker’s line of questioning.” On Saturday, Carlson released a video apologizing, acknowledging he had no evidence and saying, “I’m sorry to imply that I knew something I didn’t know.”] That apology changes nothing. More than a million people watched the original interview without a warning that its core claims were false. Carlson threw out a serious accusation against a sitting head of state without doing five minutes of verification, and the only explanation is confirmation bias.I don’t know what happened to Tucker Carlson, but it looks like we’re watching his career blow up in front of our faces in slow motion.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Jules31415/status/2025406665386766644?s=20 Tulsi https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2025310000286236865?s=20 Mar-a-Lago CAFitts

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle February 22 2026

Feb 222026
 
 February 22, 2026  Posted by at 10:36 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  52 Responses »


Pierre-Auguste Renoir Dance at Bougival 1883


• Trump Responds to Supreme Court’s Decision on Tariffs (Sarah Anderson)
• Trump Winds Down IEEPA tariffs, Imposes 10% Global Tariff To Last 150 Days (JTN)
• Supreme Court Rule 6-3 Against President Trump’s IEEPA Tariff Authority (CTH)
• Clarence Thomas Unloads on the Supreme Court Over Tariff Ruling
• Will We See a Supreme Court Vacancy (or Two) This Summer? (Josh Hammer)
• Virtually All Countries Support Voter Photo ID – So Why the Filibuster? (RCW)
• Washington Post Editorial Board Brutally Mocks Mamdani (ZH)
• President Donald Trump Stands Victim of His Own Success (David Manney)
• Biased Spies: John Ratcliffe Cleans House at the CIA (Manney)
• The Shattered Dreams of Steve Bannon (Scott Pinsker)
• When Does Accountability For The Deep State Begin? (Dornik)
• Susan Rice Warns Of ‘Accountability Agenda’ When Democrats Return To Power (JTN)
• Deporting Censorship: US Targets UK Government Ally Over Free Speech (Thaccker)

 


 

Gulf Tariffs https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2024927551760859293?s=20

 


 

 


 

“..”Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy,” he said. “And they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long — that I can assure you.”

• Trump Responds to Supreme Court’s Decision on Tariffs (Sarah Anderson)

President Donald Trump came out to speak to the press from the White House on Friday to express his feelings on the Supreme Court’s Decision to rule against his broad tariffs, which he imposed through a series of executive orders last year, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). He began by saying the ruling was “deeply disappointing,” and that he was “ashamed of certain members of the court — absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” The president also thanked Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito for “their strength and wisdom and love of our country.”


Trump claims that when you read their dissenting opinions, there’s no way anyone can argue against them. “Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy,” he said. “And they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long — that I can assure you. Trump said that he knew the Democrats on the court were an automatic “no,” just like the Democrat members of Congress, no matter how great the case. “They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy, and great again,” he said. He also called them a “disgrace to our nation.”

He said the others, presumably Justices John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, are being “politically correct,” which happens far too often, and he called them “fools and lap dogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.” “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests, and a political movement that is far smaller people would ever thing,” he said, adding, “I won by millions of votes — we won in a landslide, with all the cheating that went on, and there was a lot of it.” He claimed that “certain justices” are “afraid” of the loud, obnoxious, and ignorant minority.

“This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of economic national security and also, I would say just for our country itself — so important because we’re doing so well as a country,” he said. “The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes, and authorities, as recognized by the entire court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs available to me as president of the United States.”

Trump claimed he was actually modest in what he asked of other countries because he was trying to be “well-behaved,” and wanted to be a “good boy” because he knows how the Supreme Court works and knows they’re easily swayed. He also touted some economic wins, like recent stock market records and the decline of fentanyl coming into our country, and how tariffs helped him settle eight wars. The president said it’s ridiculous that the law allows him to “destroy” foreign countries, tell them they can’t do business in the United States, or even embargo them, but he can’t charge them a cent.

“It’s okay because we have other ways — numerous other way,” he added. “Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs, under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs… remain fully in place and in full force and effect. Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff, under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.” He said he’s also initiating other investigations to “protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”

Read more …

Bumped it up to 15%.

• Trump Winds Down IEEPA Tariffs, Imposes 10% Global Tariff To Last 150 Days (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order that formally ends a range of tariffs that the Supreme Court shot down earlier in the day, and imposed a new 10% global tariff that will be in effect for 150 days. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 split that Trump could not impose massive tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, however the majority opinion did not weigh in on other means to impose the tariffs. Trump said the new 10% global tariff is being enacted under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which comes as tariffs imposed under Section 232 and Section 301 remain in place

.
“It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately,” Trump said in a series of posts on Truth Social. “Those members of the Supreme Court who voted against our very acceptable and proper method of tariffs should be ashamed of themselves. “Their decision was ridiculous, but now the adjustment process begins, and we will do everything possible to take in even more money than we were taking in before,” he added. The new tariff will take effect just after midnight on Tuesday, Feb. 24.

Read more …

You can’t do it under IEEPA, but we have plenty other laws…

“,,the Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. (pg, 63 dissent).

• Supreme Court Rule 6-3 Against President Trump’s IEEPA Tariff Authority (CTH)

Economic security is national security, and the hollowing out of our ability to independently sustain our national economic system posed a real and substantive threat to our nation. The court never evaluated the ‘urgency’ behind the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as used by President Donald Trump.Instead, the court began their legal analysis by seeking to define the word “regulate” as it applies to IEEPA. Part II–B, concluding: (a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B) under the Act.


The majority of the court decided presidential ability to levy countervailing duties is not part of the ability to “regulate” importation. In the opinion of the court, the President can block imports, nullify imports and prohibit imports, but the president cannot “regulate” imports through the use of tariffs. This is the representative logic of a John Roberts court, the voice of Bush Inc.

It is what it is – and many of us saw this nonsense as a likely outcome, but it is still frustrating to see such a detached parseltongue approach to legal opinions when the national security of our nation is at stake. These are the judicial minds who will watch the nation burn to the ground, just so they can remain in power ruling over the ashes. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

(Via Politico) – […] “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts wrote, declaring that the 1977 law Trump cited to justify the import duties “falls short” of the Congressional approval that would be needed. The ruling wipes out the 10 percent tariff Trump imposed on nearly every country in the world, as well as specific, higher tariffs on some of the top U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, the European Union, Japan and South Korea.

Several of those countries have entered trade agreements with the U.S. — and before the ruling indicated that they would continue to honor those agreements. That is because the victory for the 12 Democratic-run states and small businesses that challenged Trump’s tariffs is expected to be short lived. The White House has signaled it will attempt to use other authorities to keep similar duties in place. “We’ve been thinking about this plan for five years or longer,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told POLITICO in December. “You can be sure that when we came to the president the beginning of the term, we had a lot of different options” “My message is tariffs are going to be a part of the policy landscape going forward,” Greer said. (read more)”

Justice Thomas agrees with CTH prior position on the issue. IEEPA grants the president the authority to regulate imports, and tariffs are a tool for regulation.


Despite this decision the tariffs will remain in place, perhaps using various authorities which have not been challenged as noted in the Kavanaugh dissent:

“That said, with respect to tariffs in particular, the Court’s decision might not prevent Presidents from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities. For example, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits the President to impose a “temporary import surcharge” to “deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” 19 U. S. C. §2132(a). Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides that, if the International Trade Commission determines an article is being imported in such quantities that it is “a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article,” the President may take “appropriate and feasible action,” including imposing a “duty.”

§§2251(a), 2253(a)(3)(A). Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President through a subordinate officer to “impose duties” if he determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” §§2411(a)(c). Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 permits the President to impose tariffs when he finds that “any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States.” §1338(d). And Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the President to, after receiving a report from the Secretary of Commerce, “adjust the imports of [an] article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.” §1862(c)(1)(a).

So the Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. (pg, 63 dissent).

Read more …

“If foreign trade regulation isn’t a core legislative function, then delegating it to the executive doesn’t violate separation of powers at all.”

• Clarence Thomas Unloads on the Supreme Court Over Tariff Ruling

The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant defeat on tariffs Friday morning, and the sharpest voice in the room wasn’t in the majority. It was Clarence Thomas, writing in dissent, methodically dismantling the majority’s reasoning for stripping the president of broad tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The ruling blocks Trump from using IEEPA as the legal foundation for his reciprocal tariff policy. For what it’s worth, the court didn’t wipe out his tariffs entirely — other statutes still provide Trump with opportunities to impose tariffs — but the majority made clear that sweeping executive tariff power requires explicit congressional guardrails.


What made the decision especially striking was the coalition that produced it. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, alongside the court’s three liberal justices. Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. His dissent goes straight to the constitutional text and history. “I write separately to explain why the statute at issue here is consistent with the separation of powers as an original matter,” he wrote. His argument is grounded in the Founding era’s actual understanding of foreign commerce — not a modern reinterpretation of it.

Thomas draws a hard line between domestic legislative power and foreign trade authority. Congress holds the taxing power and the power to set domestic rules governing life, liberty, and property. Foreign commerce is a different animal entirely. “Power over foreign commerce was not within the core legislative power, and engaging in foreign commerce was regarded as a privilege rather than a right,” he explained. If foreign trade regulation isn’t a core legislative function, then delegating it to the executive doesn’t violate separation of powers at all. In fact, that would mean it’s actually consistent with how the Founders understood the relationship between the branches.

Thomas backed this up with history. From the Founding forward, Congress routinely handed trade regulation, including the power to impose import duties, to the executive branch. Courts upheld that arrangement every time it was challenged. “The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated,” Thomas wrote. He concluded, “Congress’s delegation here was constitutional.” That framing treats unlimited tariff authority the same way the Court treats other major questions — skeptically, demanding Congress speak clearly before the executive acts broadly.Thomas thinks that’s the wrong test applied to the wrong power. His reading of the original Constitution puts the executive branch in charge of foreign commerce. He argues the majority conflated two distinct constitutional functions and punished the president for Congress’s longstanding practice of handing him the wheel on trade.

In his own dissent, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the majority’s decision would lead to chaos. “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” he wrote. Kavanaugh also noted that Trump used tariffs as leverage while making trading deals worth trillions of dollars, and that the court’s ruling “could generate uncertainty regarding those trade arrangements,” he wrote.

Read more …

“.. Thomas, who is the perhaps the single greatest living American ..”

• Will We See a Supreme Court Vacancy (or Two) This Summer? (Josh Hammer)

Few things in Washington, D.C., generate as much as excitement and intrigue as a Supreme Court confirmation showdown. For decades, since the eponymous “borking” of then-Supreme Court nominee Bob Bork in 1987, political battles surrounding the membership of the nation’s high court have been among the most contentious and raucous of Beltway affairs. Which is why it’s rather curious that very few outside the most fervid of court-watchers seem to be discussing the distinct possibility that there could be one or two Supreme Court vacancies after the current term ends this summer.


Justice Samuel Alito is 75 years old — and will be 76 by the end of this term. Justice Clarence Thomas is 77 years old — and will be 78 by term’s end. Alito just celebrated 20 years of service on the high court, and Thomas would mark 35 years of service this October — nice round numbers. Alito has a forthcoming book set for release this October, around the start of the next Supreme Court term. That isn’t anywhere near dispositive — Justice Amy Coney Barrett published a book last September, and Justice Neil Gorsuch has released two books since he was confirmed to the court in 2017 — but it has certainly fed speculation.

Thomas and Alito are, by some order of magnitude, the two most principled conservative justices currently sitting on the high court. It stands to reason that they would like to be replaced by ideological fellow travelers — something that likely requires a likeminded president and a likeminded U.S. Senate majority. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was very much an ideological fellow traveler, told Chris Wallace in a 2012 interview, “I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing what I’ve tried to do for 25-26 years. I mean, I shouldn’t have to tell you that, unless you think I’m a fool.”

If there is one thing we can say with certainty about Thomas, who is the perhaps the single greatest living American, and Alito, who is perhaps the most authentic Burkean conservative on the high court, it is that they are decidedly not fools.

Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. What’s more, they face a remarkably favorable map this November: The GOP is defending very few (if any) swing-state Senate seats, and it will have enticing Senate pickup opportunities in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. But to paraphrase the old quip from former Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, Republicans oftentimes never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Accordingly, the increasingly voluble scuttlebutt out of Washington is that there is a chance Democrats retake not merely the nearly evenly divided House, but the Senate as well. Those odds are below 50% — the online exchange Polymarket, for instance, currently places the GOP’s odds of retaining the Senate around 60% — but there is certainly a chance it happens.

That wouldn’t just spell doom for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s second term. It would be potentially calamitous for the future of the Supreme Court as well. Does anyone think that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his Democratic caucus are not prepared to stall and refuse to confirm any prospective Trump nominee to the high court? (SET ITAL)Of course(END ITAL) they are prepared to do that. If Republicans lose the Senate this November and Thomas and Alito stick around through the 2028 presidential election, they will in essence be wagering on Republicans maintaining the White House and winning back the Senate.

Is that a risk worth taking? In fairness, it might be. Republicans have historically botched few things more than they have Supreme Court nominations — from Justices William Brennan (brought to us by President Dwight Eisenhower), Harry Blackmun (President Richard Nixon), and David Souter (President George H.W. Bush), to some of the more milquetoast Trump selections such as Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. The track record is not exactly inspiring. And because Thomas and Alito are the two finest conservative jurists on the high court, there is little to no room for improvement, from a constitutionalist perspective — there can only be regression.

Nonetheless, in spite of the GOP’s woeful judicial nominations track record, there are plenty of outstanding potential justices-in-waiting. My former boss Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, a former Thomas clerk, is likely the single most principled originalist of all current lower-court federal judges. His 5th Circuit colleague Andrew Oldham, a fellow stalwart, happens to have the corresponding symbolism of being a former Alito clerk. D. John Sauer, the outstanding current U.S. solicitor general, is a former Scalia clerk and a rapidly emerging dark horse contender. There are other possible rock-solid nominees as well.

Read more …

“..Democrats argue that requiring free voter photo IDs – even when the ID itself costs nothing – harms eligible voters by creating practical barriers to casting a ballot.

• Virtually All Countries Support Voter Photo ID – So Why the Filibuster? (RCW)

“The bottom line is this: voter ID is not controversial in this country,” Harry Enten, the chief data analyst for CNN, recently reported. Nor is it controversial in virtually any other country in the world. Yet despite massive support among both Democrats (71%) and Republicans (95%), only one Democratic member of the House and one in the Senate are supporting the SAVE Act. Unless seven more of the 47 Senate Democrats step forward, their filibuster will kill the bill. Democrats argue that requiring free voter photo IDs – even when the ID itself costs nothing – harms eligible voters by creating practical barriers to casting a ballot. They contend that blacks would be especially hard hit. Interestingly, every country in Africa requires government-issued identification to vote.


They also argue that such requirements would disenfranchise Hispanic voters. Yet Mexico, all twelve South American countries, and Spain require government-issued photo IDs to vote. All of these countries have lower per-capita incomes than the United States. If citizens in those nations can obtain the necessary identification to vote, why would American Hispanics and blacks be unable to do the same? While 83% of American adults support requiring government-issued photo identification to vote, support is also strong among the very groups Democrats claim would be harmed: 82% of Hispanics and 76% of black Americans favor the requirement. Those figures suggest that most black and Hispanic Americans do not view obtaining a photo ID as the obstacle Democrats describe. Ten U.S. states have similarly strong photo ID requirements.

Democrats claim that women are disproportionately disenfranchised by voter IDs, but women are also strongly supportive of IDs and have exactly the same level of support as men.Democrats argue that voter ID requirements disproportionately disenfranchise people with the least education and lowest incomes. Yet, ironically, survey results show that voters who did not graduate from high school were 27 percentage points more likely to support photo voter ID laws than those who attended graduate school. Similarly, individuals earning less than $30,000 per year were seven percentage points more likely to support photo ID requirements than those earning over $200,000 annually.

The well-educated and higher-income individuals thus express more concern about the impact of ID laws on the less educated and lower-income groups than those groups express themselves.But it isn’t just South American countries and all of Africa that require voter IDs to vote. Both of our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, require them, with Mexico also requiring a thumbprint. All 47 European countries, except parts of the United Kingdom, require a government-issued photo ID .

After widespread vote fraud, Mexico enacted major voting reforms in 1991. The government mandated voter photo IDs with biometric information, banned absentee ballots, and required in-person voter registration. Even though these changes made registration more difficult and eliminated absentee voting, turnout increased after the reforms took effect. In the three presidential elections following the 1991 changes, an average of 68% of eligible citizens voted, compared with 59% in the three elections before the reforms. As confidence in the electoral process grew, more citizens chose to participate. Many countries in Europe and beyond have learned the hard way that fraud can result from looser voting regimes – and they have instituted stricter voting measures in direct response to it. In Northern Ireland, where a bitter sectarian conflict fuels hardball electoral tactics, parties on all sides have engaged in what observers describe as “widespread and systemic“ voter fraud. Both Conservative and Labour governments enacted reforms to curb it. In 1985, under the conservative Margaret Thatcher, the U.K. began requiring voters to show identification before receiving a ballot, but that measure did not solve the problem.

In 1998, a Select Committee on Northern Ireland reported that people could “easily forge” medical cards – accepted as ID under the 1985 law – or obtain them fraudulently, enabling non-existent individuals to cast votes. By 2002, the Labour government strengthened voter identification cards to make them far harder to forge and used the more secure IDs, along with additional rules, to stop people from registering multiple times. These anti-fraud measures immediately reduced total registrations by 11%, suggesting to Labour how extensive earlier fraud had been.

Read more …

“.. Even the state government of Florida (population 23 million) spends less than New York City’…,”

• Washington Post Editorial Board Brutally Mocks Mamdani (ZH)

Margaret Thatcher once said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money,” and New York City’s new socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, is learning just how right she was, and New Yorkers are going to pay a hefty price for it. On Tuesday, a mere two months after declaring he would “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism,” Mamdani announced a $127 billion preliminary budget for fiscal year 2027, a $5 billion increase from the prior year, while simultaneously warning residents of “painful” tax hikes if state officials refused to bail him out to cover his socialist policies.


“That’s a city budget bigger than the state budgets of 47 states. Even the state government of Florida (population 23 million) spends less than New York City’s,” explains The Washington Post editorial board. “And the state still managed to attract hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers in recent years.” “The reality is that Americans may like the idea of ‘free’ stuff — it’s how socialists win elections — but they are less excited about having to pay for it” they continued. “They’re even less excited when they live in a state that ranks at the very bottom of the Tax Foundation’s State Tax Competitiveness Index.”

During a press conference earlier this week, Mamdani called on New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to raise income taxes on the “ultra-wealthy” help fund his budget for New York City. “The onus for resolving this crisis should not be placed on the backs of working and middle-class New Yorkers,” Mamdani said. “If we do not fix this structural imbalance and do not heed the calls of New Yorkers to raise taxes on the wealthy, this crisis will not disappear. It will simply return, year after year, forcing harder and harsher choices each time. And if we do not go down the first path, the city will be forced down a second, more harmful path. Faced with no other choice, the city would have to exercise the only revenue lever fully within our own control. We would have to raise property taxes.”


Hochul rejected the tax hike demand without hesitation, telling Mamdani to expand his “ridiculously low” proposed spending cuts instead. Mamdani has claimed his administration identified $1.7 billion in cuts. The Post’s editorial board was not impressed, calling it a “laughable number.” “The reality is that Mamdani is trying to expand a city government that already does way too much,” they argued. “ The city should provide basic services, such as law and order, but instead it pours billions into social spending like housing and health care.” They even cited California as a cautionary tale, warning that in the Golden State, “a slew of billionaires are fleeing at the mere possibility of a wealth tax. They’ll avoid the wealth tax — and California will miss out on the billions that these individuals otherwise would have contributed before a wealth tax was even imposed.”

More experienced Democrats in New York understand this. Gov. Kathy Hochul, no one’s idea of a fiscal hawk, nevertheless instigated Mamdani’s tantrum by refusing to go along with more tax hikes. The city council speaker and comptroller also have sway and are skeptical of new taxes. This week, it was revealed that acclaimed director and filmmaker Steven Spielberg officially became a New York resident on January 1, effectively avoiding the billionaire tax—though a representative for Spielberg and his wife Cate Capshaw claimed the move was to be closer to family.

Mamdani’s pre-election promises — free buses, expanded child care, cash assistance, rental aid, and smaller class sizes for teachers’ unions — were crowd-pleasers that earned him “tax the rich” chants at campaign rallies. The problem is that governing a city with a structural deficit requires something more than slogans. His preliminary budget now acknowledges a $5.4 billion shortfall for the current fiscal year, with projections that worsen over time. “No one in New York is ambitious enough to dramatically reshape city government, and residents either vote for class warfare or vote with their feet. A reckoning will have to come eventually. The question is how bad it gets before reality sets in,” the board concluded.

Ouch.

Read more …

“.. Trump fixed the border, lowered crime, and now demands the same common-sense security at the ballot box..”

• President Donald Trump Stands Victim of His Own Success (David Manney)

In the early days of the NBA, George Mikan was so dominant in the paint that the league had to redraw the court. Defenders couldn’t stop him, and coaches couldn’t scheme around him, so the league widened the lane to push him further from the basket. They changed the rules because one man kept winning under the old ones. That’s where we find President Donald Trump today. He clamped down on the southern border, ending the chaos so fast that the crisis faded from daily debate. He renewed the economy and strengthened national security. He slashed narcotics imports while driving the murder rates across the country.


Instead of arguing policy, opponents now look for ways to redraw the political court around him. They protest enforcement agencies, stage walkouts, and shift attention to anything except measurable results. When outcomes favor one side so decisively, critics often stop debating the scoreboard and start questioning the game itself. Migrant encounters fell to the lowest level in more than 50 years; Customs and Border Protection recorded just 237,538 encounters for all of fiscal year 2025. January 2026 brought only 6,070 southwest border apprehensions and marked the ninth straight month with zero releases into the interior. Nationwide encounters dropped 84% in January 2025, while seizures of fentanyl dropped sharply, too.

Violent crime falls to record lows
Nationwide, murder rates fell through the floor, as major cities saw homicides drop 19% to 21% in 2025 alone. The murder rate hit its lowest point since at least 1900, marking the largest one-year decline ever recorded. Robberies fell about 20%, aggravated assaults fell nearly 10%, and overdose deaths shrank as narcotics imports dried up.

National Guard restores order in the capital
In Washington, D.C., Trump declared a crime emergency in August 2025, launching the Make DC Safe and Beautiful Task Force and bringing in federal agents, local police, and National Guard troops. Since then, authorities made more than 10,000 arrests and taken more than 1,000 illegal guns off the streets. Once real help arrived, homicides dropped extremely fast. In 2017, Forlesia Cook lost her grandson to gun violence in Washington. She stood up at the White House Black History Month reception on Feb. 18 and looked critics straight in the eye. The room erupted in applause, and Trump urged her to run for office.

Save America Act highlights the deeper divide
The SAVE America Act requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and a photo ID to cast a ballot: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced the bill. President Trump pushes hard for its passage because nothing matters more than clean elections. The House passed it on Feb. 11. Polling shows roughly 75% to 84% of registered voters favor voter ID and proof of citizenship. Support cuts across Democrats, independents, black, and Hispanic Americans. Yet far-left politicians fight it tooth and nail; Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), vow to block it in the Senate, warning about voter suppression and arguing it harms women who changed their names (I-9 Forms for their jobs, anyone?) or low-income voters who lack

The deeper fear shines through: Secure elections could cut off loose votes some candidates rely on to stay in power. The loudest defenders of democracy often resist clear rules that strengthen it. It’s a familiar enough-looking pattern. Open-border policies under the previous administration flooded the country with millions of people and left voter rolls vulnerable. Record border crossings from 2022 through 2024 raised real questions about who votes. Officials looked the other way while colleges, courts, and much of the legacy media repeated the same, tired story. Trump fixed the border, lowered crime, and now demands the same common-sense security at the ballot box, reaching Americans directly through streaming platforms and rallies because old gatekeepers refuse to carry the message.

Democrats protest the very agents who deliver results
Democrats and the left (pardon the redundancy) limit every argument to that old chestnut: Calling Trump evil, while demanding that he suffer defeat and humiliation. They protest ICE agents who carry out the exact policies voters chose, ignoring the sealed border, safer streets, and stronger economy. Their big idea? Stage-side rallies or boycotts for the upcoming State of the Union Address set for Tuesday, Feb. 24. How convenient. ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith, definitely not a Republican, spoke plainly, saying Democrats show zero sense of decorum. He said they put raw politics ahead of their own constituents by planning to skip or disrupt the president’s upcoming speech.

Trump’s ready to talk with anybody; he spends the time, shows the patience, and treats people with respect. The other side offers only venom because that’s all they have left, their old arguments collapsed years ago.

Read more …

“There is absolutely no room for bias in any kind of the CIA’s work..”

• Biased Spies: John Ratcliffe Cleans House at the CIA (Manney)

A rare correction at Langley
CIA Director John Ratcliffe rescinded or revised 19 intelligence reports after determining they contained political bias and violated basic tradecraft standards. The President’s Intelligence Advisory Board reviewed around 300 reports from the past decade and flagged serious problems: 17 were permanently deleted, two were pulled, revised, and reissued. A senior CIA official told Just The News that the reports were initially flagged during a review by the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, then reviewed by career agency officials before being retracted, recalled, or revised. “There is absolutely no room for bias in any kind of the CIA’s work,” the official said. “So when we find instances where our tradecraft did not reach that high bar of impartiality, we must correct the record. And that’s why we’re taking steps to reinforce analytic integrity by ordering the public release, substantive revision, or retraction of these products that do not meet CIA’s tradecraft standards.” The action stands out because a sweeping internal correction like this rarely occurs; intelligence agencies revise their analyses over time, but mass rescissions tied to political bias seldom occur in public.


Reports that read like activism
One report warned that women embracing traditional motherhood could drift toward violent extremism, with analysts describing motherhood as a white supremacist objective, suggesting that women sharing cooking videos or family values content could aid recruitment networks. The product relied heavily on open-source material rather than on classified intelligence collection. One was an Oct. 6, 2021, assessment titled “Women Advancing White Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist Radicalization and Recruitment” that waded into “foreign political debates about gender roles rather discussing any actual threats of political violence,” the senior CIA official said.

It had labeled the far-right Canadian YouTuber Lauren Southern as a white racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist and spoke of the dangers such figures pose to societies — in addition to women pursuing traditional roles as mothers. A July 8, 2020 a CIA report also centered on family planning and the disruptions of condom supply chains worldwide using “unobjective sources of information such as Planned Parenthood,” the official noted. Another assessment from 2020 warned that birth control shortages during the pandemic would damage economic growth in Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan, using sources such as Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, and Marie Stopes International. Another report from 2015 promoted LGBT academic programs in North Africa and the Middle East while criticizing conservative governments.Intelligence Community Directive 203 requires objectivity, independence, and avoidance of any political slant. Ratcliffe said the flawed reports fell short of the high standards the agency must uphold, stressing there’s no room for bias in intelligence analysis.

Directors and oversight
The January 2015 report was issued during the tenure of CIA Director John Brennan; the July 2020 report landed on the desk of CIA Director Gina Haspel; and the October 2021 motherhood report circulated while William Burns served as CIA Director. Each director presided over an agency required to enforce Directive 203’s standards of impartiality. None of the prior directors rescinded large batches of reports over bias concerns. Past intelligence controversies drew scrutiny; the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, produced under George Tenet, later proved deeply flawed.

Read more …

“There’s a reason why Trump nicknamed him “Sloppy Steve.”

• The Shattered Dreams of Steve Bannon (Scott Pinsker)

Until the impossible became possible — and Donald Trump engineered the political upset of his generation, toppling Hillary Clinton in 2016 — most Americans had no idea who Steve Bannon was. Visually, he wasn’t much to look at. Bannon wasn’t a workout wonder like RFK Jr., with six-pack abs, nor was he blessed with movie star good looks. Some guys were born with oodles of charisma — the kind of raw, undeniable magnetism that leaps off the screen. Bannon, alas, wasn’t one of those people. There’s a reason why Trump nicknamed him “Sloppy Steve.”


But after Trump was elected, the media hunted for an explanation. Surely a bumble-headed dunce like Trump couldn’t get elected president on his own! That’s impossible! So they searched high and low for the behind-the-scenes maestro who pulled all the strings — the shrewd strategist who orchestrated the single greatest political upset since Dewey Defeats Truman Truman Defeats Dewey. At which point, Steve Bannon leapt out of the shadows: Yup, I’m the genius. It was me all along! The media, quite naturally, ate it up:

And not without reason. As far as personal bios go, Bannon was an odd duck with a helluva story. He had military experience as a Navy officer. He was financially savvy enough to work at Goldman Sachs. He was clever enough to acquire a financial stake in Seinfeld (Bannon still receives residuals for Seinfeld reruns). He knew enough about conservative media to run Breitbart — a platform that had long championed Trump’s candidacy. And then he assumed command of Trump’s campaign in August of 2016, just in time to claim credit for the victory?Maybe he really was the maestro of it all!

Bannon, for very obvious reasons, worked feverishly to advance the narrative of “Steve Bannon, Political Genius.” Within the Trump White House, his media leaks became increasingly self-serving. Instead of leveraging media relations to elevate his boss or the MAGA mission, he sought to mythologize himself. It all culminated with Bannon losing his job in the White House and getting fired from Breitbart after he leaked negative information about Trump’s children to the fierce Trump critic, journalist Michael Wolff. Among the delightful headlines Bannon helped produce was Business Insider’s Jan. 3, 2018, story, “Steve Bannon Says Ivanka Trump Is ‘Dumb as a Brick’.” Trump responded in typically Trumpian fashion:

“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency,” Trump said. “When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.” […] “Steve doesn’t represent my base — he’s only in it for himself,” Trump said. “Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was. It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.”

Today, of course, we know the truth: Steve Bannon didn’t control Trump — because NOBODY controls Trump. The very premise is preposterous. For better or worse, Donald J. Trump is his own man. He’s like a wild stallion — uncontrollable. Then in 2024, with Steve Bannon sidelined, Trump proved his point by winning the presidency once again — this time by an even greater margin. Turns out that Bannon was less the leader and more the luggage, because Trump did more to carry him than the other way around. That’s not to say Bannon is a dim bulb. Clearly, he’s an exceptionally bright man. Some of his political calculations are off-the-charts prescient, i.e. his April 2025 prediction that Cardinal Prevost would become the first American-born pope:

https://twitter.com/PiersUncensored/status/1917308154427367583

He’s also a man brimming with ambition. Just 40 days ago, Axios reported that Bannon was planning to run for president in 2028: “Former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon is laying the groundwork for a 2028 run for president, two people familiar with his thinking tell Axios.” […] Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who has appeared on Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, said: “The Bannon campaign will merge the foreign policy of Rand Paul with the tax policy of Elizabeth Warren.” (Not sure if the MAGA base is clamoring for a Warren-Paul themed agenda, but whatever. Not my monkey, not my circus.) Either way, it’s a deeply damaging PR look. Setting up your own presidential bid barely a year into Trump’s term seems awfully arrogant and self-indulgent. That’s a poor plan for winning GOP hearts and minds.

[..] He’s a conspiracy peddler who denies conspiracies — while participating in conspiracies! No matter. The Epstein revelations were a deathblow to Bannon’s presidential ambitions. There’s ZERO demand in Republican circles for a 75-year-old Epstein-whisperer to replace Vance, Rubio, or anyone else as MAGA’s heir apparent. Because, the more we learned about Epstein, the more we realized that Steve Bannon isn’t a political savant, a super-genius, or a 4-D chess mastermind. He’s a lying, duplicitous, self-serving hypocrite who can’t be trusted. And that’s not a “coincidence” either. It’s causation.

Read more …

It looks easier from the outside.

• When Does Accountability For The Deep State Begin? (Dornik)

We were told this time would be different. We were told that a second Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes of the first, that hard lessons had been learned, and that the Deep State would finally be confronted rather than tolerated. One year into President Trump’s second term, it is both fair and necessary to ask whether those assurances are being honored—not from hostility but from a sincere desire to see the America First agenda succeed, endure, and become irreversible.


President Trump’s first term, Congress squandered its moment. The first two years were consumed by infighting, hesitation, and internal paralysis, even with Republican control. Then came the midterms, control was lost, and meaningful legislative progress effectively ended. What followed were impeachment spectacles and relentless political warfare, while entrenched corruption inside the federal government remained untouched. Now, just past the first year of President Trump’s second term, the pattern feels disturbingly familiar. The urgency voters demanded is not being matched by the actions of those entrusted to deliver it.

The question that must be asked plainly is this: when is the Trump administration actually going to root out the Deep State?

Executive Orders are being signed at a rapid pace, but Executive Orders are not reform. They are temporary directives that can be erased with a single signature the moment someone like Gavin Newsom takes office. Without legislation, without prosecutions, and without accountability, nothing is secured. Power is being exercised, but it is not being anchored, and lasting change is never achieved that way.

Kash Patel built his credibility by telling the truth about corruption in Washington. His book and documentary, Government Gangsters, documented in detail how entrenched bureaucrats and intelligence officials worked against President Trump from within the federal government. He even came on my show and spoke openly about this corruption, and he stated repeatedly across multiple platforms that the FBI, particularly at its highest levels, was deeply compromised and required fundamental reform. He did not argue that the Bureau should be abandoned, but that it could not be trusted without aggressive leadership, restructuring, and accountability for the Deep State operatives within the bureau. He warned that the Deep State would never reform itself and would have to be confronted directly. He also told Glenn Beck that the head of the FBI possessed Jeffrey Epstein’s client list. These were not casual remarks. They were core assertions made publicly and repeatedly.

Now Kash Patel is the head of the FBI, and the public posture has shifted dramatically. The same institution he once described as captured is now treated as credible and restrained. The Epstein client list, once discussed as a known reality, is now dismissed as conspiracy, even as new Epstein-related documents continue to be released to the public over the protest of the Trump administration. Each document release raises more questions, not fewer, and every delay from federal law enforcement deepens public distrust rather than restoring confidence. A reversal this significant demands explanation. Trust is not rebuilt through silence, and credibility is not preserved by pretending prior statements were never made.

These questions extend far beyond the FBI and land squarely on the Department of Justice, where accountability appears to collapse the moment it threatens entrenched power. The removal of Ed Martin from his role inside the DOJ is not just a minor personnel decision; it appears to be a clear signal that real investigations into weaponization and lawfare are not being tolerated. Ed Martin was positioned to expose how the Biden Department of Justice targeted Americans, abused prosecutorial authority, and used federal power as a political weapon. According to Emerald Robinson, whose reporting has repeatedly exposed corruption others refuse to confront, Martin was removed from his position by the same people who refer to parents as terrorists: “Vance Day, senior counsel for Todd Blanche, refers to parents targeted by Biden DOJ as ‘terrorists’ in recent meeting with one parent asking for accountability. Blanche’s office also removed Ed Martin from his role at the DOJ.” That disclosure alone should alarm every American paying attention.

Parents who were targeted and persecuted by the Biden Department of Justice are now being labeled terrorists by senior DOJ leadership, while the man tasked with investigating that persecution is sidelined. Whether this is described as a firing or a demotion is irrelevant, because the outcome is the same. Another one of the good guys has been removed from doing the work voters were promised would finally drain the swamp. This is not an isolated incident or a misunderstanding but a pattern that repeats with disturbing consistency. Every time someone begins making real progress against the Deep State, authority is stripped, investigations are stalled, and momentum is deliberately crushed before accountability can be delivered.

So the questions must be asked: Where are the arrests? Where are the prosecutions? Why has Attorney General Pam Bondi not brought cases against members of the January 6 Committee despite documented misconduct and destroyed records? Why has the Department of Justice taken no action against Anthony Fauci even after Sen. Rand Paul issued criminal referrals? Why is the DOJ actively fighting to shut down Brook Jackson’s case against Pfizer instead of allowing it to proceed and standing with a whistleblower who exposed documented fraud? Why do Epstein-related documents continue to surface while no meaningful accountability follows? What happened to transparency, and what happened to equal justice under the law?

Read more …

Serious threats.

• Susan Rice Warns Of ‘Accountability Agenda’ When Democrats Return To Power (JTN)

Former Democratic Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice warned corporations Thursday who have “taken a knee” to President Donald Trump and his administration that there would be repercussions when her party returns to power. The comment comes after The Late Show host Stephen Colbert accused CBS News this week of bowing to Trump by allegedly blocking the host from airing an interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a Democrat who is running for the U.S. Senate. CBS has denied blocking the interview, which was posted to YouTube instead.


Rice insisted an “accountability agenda” was coming for the people and corporations who worked with the Trump administration if Democrats win back the majority in the House or Senate this November. “If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to play by the old rules, and, you know, say, ‘Oh, never mind. We’ll forgive you for all the people you fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all, you know, the laws you’ve skirted.’ I think they’ve got another think coming,” she told former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

Rice, who worked in the Obama and Biden administrations, claimed the corporations and other entities like universities acted in a “very short-term self-interest” when deciding to work with the administration in certain capacities. “Companies are already starting to hear they better preserve their documents,” she said. “They better be ready for subpoenas. If they’ve done something wrong, they’ll be held accountable, and if they haven’t broken the law, good for them. “This is not going to be an instance of, you know, forgive and forget,” she continued. “The damage that these people are doing is too severe to the American people and to our national interest.”

Read more …

”.. Rubio noted that documents leaked from inside the group outline ambitious plans to “kill Musk’s Twitter” and “trigger EU and UK regulatory action.”

• Deporting Censorship: US Targets UK Government Ally Over Free Speech (Thaccker)

As ICE sweeps in Minneapolis have drawn wide attention, a little-noticed immigration case playing out in a New York federal court has significant implications for America’s relationship with Britain and the ongoing debate over global censorship.


In late December, the State Department announced its intention to revoke the visas of five foreign individuals who have allegedly censored Americans. The most consequential member of this group is Imran Ahmed, a British Labour Party political operative now living in the U.S., who is the CEO of an influential nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

In documents released Feb. 6 in federal court, the State Department claims Ahmed and the Center have been key players in efforts to censor Americans. A memo written by State Department Undersecretary Sarah Rogers asserts that “Ahmed was a key collaborator with the Biden administration on weaponizing the national security bureaucracy to censor U.S. citizens and pressure U.S. companies into censoring, and his group advocates for foreign regulatory action that extraterritorially impacts American citizens and companies.”

In a follow-up memo, Secretary Marco Rubio wrote that Ahmed had led efforts to censor Americans and harm U.S. media outlets, including ZeroHedge and The Federalist. “I have determined that Ahmed’s activities and presence in the United States have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and comprise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” Rubio asserted. While the Center casts itself as a disinterested nonprofit trying to stop online hate, Rubio noted that documents leaked from inside the group outline ambitious plans to “kill Musk’s Twitter” and “trigger EU and UK regulatory action.”

Ahmed has a small army of lawyers working to halt his deportation proceedings, which are now being litigated. Ahmed’s lead attorney is Roberta Kaplan – a former advisor to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo – who sued President Trump on behalf of his niece, Mary Trump. Ahmed is also represented by Norm Eisen, a Democratic Party fundraiser and former advisor to Obama. Last Thursday, they filed an updated court complaint against the U.S. government to keep Ahmed in the United States.

International Implications
. The effort to deport Ahmed has broader political implications because of the close ties he and his associates have to the highest reaches of the British government. Morgan McSweeney, who co-founded the Center with Ahmed, is widely seen as the architect of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party victory in 2024. McSweeney served as Starmer’s chief of staff until earlier this month, when he resigned because of a separate scandal connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

U.K. government documents reviewed by RCI show that the organization’s influence extends throughout Starmer’s government. The Trump administration’s pushback on Ahmed’s weaponization of speech against U.S. citizens and companies suggests a deep concern about foreign intervention and censorship stemming from one of America’s closest allies.In a recent interview with Undersecretary Rogers, RCI noted that the State Department appeared to be “knocking on the door of the Prime Minister’s office.” Rogers demurred, declining to detail her discussion with Starmer officials. “We have a very special relationship with the British government,” she responded. “The issue has been communicated.”

Senior Labour Minister Chi Onwurah accused the Trump administration of attacking free speech after Rubio announced shortly before Christmas that the administration was seeking Ahmed’s deportation. “Banning people because you disagree with what they say undermines the free speech the administration claims to seek,” Onwurah said, adding that Ahmed was an articulate advocate for greater regulation of online speech. However, internal British government documents show that Onwurah is one of Starmer’s many advisors who have been working with Ahmed on activities many consider censorship..

Read more …

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2024934679493677217?s=20

https://twitter.com/BryceMLipscomb/status/2024838259751186906?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 8 2025

Sep 082025
 
 September 8, 2025  Posted by at 10:06 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  48 Responses »


Banksy Bataclan emergency door 2018

 

• Putin and Trump ‘Will Prevent WWIII’ – Kremlin Envoy Dmitriev (RT)
• Macron’s Government Is Collapsing. Ukraine Should Worry (RT)
• Putin Notes an Underlying Issue Within Ukraine that Impedes Negotiation (CTH)
• Peace in Ukraine ‘Easier Without Brussels Hawks Fueling War’ (Sp.)
• Orban: EU’s Next 7-Year Budget to Become Last One If Bloc Does Not Change (Sp.)
• THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Trump Astride at 7 Months (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Truth About CV19 Vax Awakens Public – Karen Kingston (USAW)
• Thoughts on Robert F Kennedy Jr Congressional Testimony (CTH)
• Trump Threatens ‘War’ On Chicago Over Immigration (RT)
• 29 Million Deaths Linked To EU and US Sanctions (RT)
• US in ‘Very Deep Negotiations’ With Hamas to End Gaza Conflict – Trump (ET)
• Globalists’ Attacks on Russia Linked to Its Rich Natural Resources – Dmitriev (Sp.)
• Gold & Silver Sniffing Out Risk & Fear – Bill Holter (USAW)
• Bessent Doubles Down On Tariffs, Predicts Economic Surge (ZH)
• Once Were Relevant (el gato malo)

 

 

BLM

Optimus

Conor
https://twitter.com/CilComLFC/status/1964731216751648805

Chicago
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1964735109900439575

 

 

 

 

Do let’s start the day, and the week, with some optimism.

• Putin and Trump ‘Will Prevent WWIII’ – Kremlin Envoy Dmitriev (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, are bringing the end of the Ukraine conflict closer, Kirill Dmitriev, a presidential aide on international economic affairs, has said. He added that the diplomatic efforts of the two men could prevent World War III. Dmitriev, who is also the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), the country’s sovereign wealth fund, wrote on X on Saturday: “Stalin, Roosevelt & Churchill won WWII. Putin & Trump will prevent WWIII.” He accompanied his post with a picture of the Soviet, US, and British leaders made during the historic 1945 Yalta Conference, which laid the foundations for the post-war order after the defeat of Nazi Germany.

https://twitter.com/kadmitriev/status/1964424166498619598?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1964424166498619598%7Ctwgr%5E4cb35d87737794ec695f4472c5464573d6efc307%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Frussia%2F624235-putin-trump-prevent-wwiii%2F

He also pushed back against former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who suggested that Moscow is not serious about negotiations to end the conflict and urged more Western weapons for Ukraine. “Wrong. Peace is close precisely because of Trump-Putin dialogue. Idiotic [former US President Joe] Biden’s approaches failed. Isolation attempts failed. Sanctions failed. Dialogue, respect, understanding each other, problem-solving to find [a] long-term solution is the way,” Dmitriev said. Breaking a long hiatus in top-level talks between the US and Russia, Putin and Trump have held several phone conversations and met face-to-face in Alaska in mid-August.

While no ceasefire agreement was reached at the Alaska summit, the two sides praised the engagement as highly productive. Following the talks, Trump said that Ukraine cannot hope to join NATO or reclaim Crimea. On Friday, Putin struck a cautiously optimistic tone about the prospects for ending the conflict, noting that “there is light at the end of the tunnel,” but noted that if no diplomatic solution is found, “we will have to reach all the goals through arms.” Moscow has insisted that a sustainable resolution to the conflict is possible only if Ukraine commits to neutrality, demilitarization, denazification, and recognizes the new territorial reality on the ground.

Read more …

“Kiev’s guarantees are cast into doubt, and Moscow can argue convincingly that Europe’s talk of peace is inseparable from its rush to militarize.”

• Macron’s Government Is Collapsing. Ukraine Should Worry (RT)

France’s government is once again on the verge of collapse. Prime Minister Francois Bayrou faces near-certain defeat in a confidence vote over a disputed austerity plan, a showdown that threatens President Emmanuel Macron’s authority at home and casts doubt on Paris’ ability to deliver on its ambitious promises abroad – including security guarantees for Ukraine.

France in meltdown – how bad is it this time? Bayrou has staked his survival on a confidence vote scheduled for Monday, September 8. At issue is an austerity package worth €44 billion, meant to shrink France’s deficit from 5.4% of GDP in 2025 toward 4.6% in 2026. Under EU fiscal rules, the official ceiling is 3%, so Brussels is pressuring Paris to cut deeper. But the plan – which includes reducing public holidays and raising healthcare contributions – has triggered anger at home. Trade unions are preparing strikes, while opposition parties from the far left to the far right have pledged to vote against Bayrou. With his government already in a minority, few in Paris believe he can survive.

Macron’s friend, savior, or dead weight? Francois Bayrou is one of the most familiar names in French politics. He leads the centrist Democratic Movement (MoDem) and has been mayor of the city of Pau since 2014. Back in 2017, his endorsement was crucial for Macron, giving the then-upstart candidate credibility in the political center. As president, Macron briefly made him justice minister, and after Michel Barnier was forced out in late 2024, Bayrou was elevated to prime minister to hold together Macron’s fragile coalition. But with his budget collapsing and support evaporating, the man once hailed as a stabilizer is now being blamed for dragging Macron further into crisis.

How did one budget plan blow up the PM’s career? In France, governments can invoke Article 49.3 of the Constitution to force a bill through the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, without a vote. The mechanism has existed since 1958 and is legal, but risky: once Article 49.3 is triggered, opposition lawmakers have 24 hours to file a no-confidence motion. If that motion passes, the government falls. Bayrou’s decision to use 49.3 turned his €44 billion austerity plan into a survival gamble. Bayrou chose confrontation over compromise. By tying his austerity program directly to a confidence vote, he hoped to project resolve. The package included unpopular measures such as cutting public holidays and raising healthcare charges. Instead of rallying deputies behind him, the move united nearly every opposition faction. The far-right National Rally, the Socialists, and the leftist France Unbowed all declared they would vote him out, filing no-confidence motions that set up a showdown on Monday. What was meant to be a show of strength turned into political suicide.

Macron without Bayrou – what’s left of his power? If Bayrou falls, Macron is left exposed: he’s going to have to pick between two bad options. He can install a Socialist prime minister to get a budget through parliament, effectively conceding control of domestic policy. Or he can gamble on snap elections, which polls suggest would hand more seats to Le Pen’s National Rally. With Macron’s approval ratings already scraping historic lows, either choice would deepen the sense of a weakened presidency. Commentators warn that if markets lose confidence in France’s ability to control its 5.4% of GDP deficit and 110% debt-to-GDP ratio, the country could face a crisis reminiscent of Britain’s “mini-budget” turmoil under Liz Truss.

Where does Bayrou actually stand on Ukraine? On foreign policy, Bayrou has been a vocal supporter of Kiev. In March 2025, he openly criticized Washington for pushing Ukraine to negotiate peace with Moscow, calling such demands “unbearable.” He argued that pushing concessions would humiliate Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and amount to rewarding Russia. Inside Macron’s government, Bayrou has been one of the strongest advocates of sustained European backing for Ukraine, insisting that Paris must stand firm.

And Ukraine – what happens when Paris goes quiet? For Kiev, French instability brings real costs.
• Cash flow: The €3 billion pledged for 2024 but still not disbursed was meant to cover weapons and financial aid. But such spending has to pass through the annual budget. With Bayrou’s plan collapsing and parliament in revolt, securing new funds will be politically and legally harder for any caretaker government.
• Losing an ally: Bayrou’s exit would strip Kiev of one of its most reliable advocates inside the French cabinet. By contrast, opposition parties – and even voices within Macron’s camp – have been more skeptical of pouring money into Kiev while cutting spending at home. His departure strips Macron of a key advocate inside the cabinet.
• Security guarantees in limbo: Macron has positioned France as the organizer of the “Coalition of the Willing,” where 26 countries promised postwar guarantees for Ukraine, potentially including a reassurance force. Such a plan requires stable leadership, funding commitments, and parliamentary approval. A government in turmoil cannot push through the legal and financial framework needed to turn pledges into reality.
• ‘Armed to the teeth’ peace plan: Macron has also announced an extra €6.5 billion in defense spending for 2025-2027, lifting France’s annual budget from about €47 billion in 2024 to €64 billion by 2027 – a roughly 35% increase. This blurs the line between “peace guarantees” and outright militarization, reinforcing Moscow’s argument that Europe’s settlement talk is cover for escalation.

If France wobbles, is the EU still ‘united’? The fallout would reach Brussels as well. The EU relies on France, the bloc’s second-largest economy, to underwrite collective aid to Kiev, yet the €3 billion pledge Paris made for 2024 is in doubt. That damages the bloc’s credibility as a reliable funder at a time when Germany is reluctant to shoulder the costs alone. Macron has also styled himself as the champion of “strategic autonomy,” calling together with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for a stronger European defense role. But as the Financial Times has noted, those ambitions collide with weak finances and political divisions. With France paralyzed, the EU’s claim to speak with one voice looks hollow, and existing rifts – from Hungary’s open skepticism to Slovakia’s resistance on energy and sanctions – are harder to conceal.

Bottom line Bayrou’s downfall would leave Macron weaker at home and less credible abroad. France’s ability to anchor the EU’s Ukraine policy looks shaky, Kiev’s guarantees are cast into doubt, and Moscow can argue convincingly that Europe’s talk of peace is inseparable from its rush to militarize.

Read more …

Machine translation?!

• Putin Notes an Underlying Issue Within Ukraine that Impedes Negotiation (CTH)

I have often said that Russian dialogue is essentially different from Western dialogue in that Russian speaking is direct and without pretense. This difference is very visible when outlining positions built on pragmatic acceptances. Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin was asked about the status of negotiations with Ukraine. President Putin notes some of the internal political issues within Ukraine must be deconflicted in order for discussions to proceed. Without these issues resolved, discussion is futile.

Russian President Vladimir Putin: “First. After all, quite recently, the leadership of the Kyiv regime, mildly speaking unflatteringly of us, and excluded all possibility of direct Contacts. Now we see that they are asking for these contacts, at least Offer. I have repeatedly said that I am ready for these contacts. At the news conference in Beijing, which you mentioned, I said that there is no point in I don’t see much of it. Why? Because it will be agreed with the Ukrainian side is almost impossible on key issues. Even if there is a political will, What I doubt is that there are legal and technical difficulties that are that any agreements on territories must be confirmed in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine at a referendum. In order to hold a referendum, martial law must be lifted, Martial law is not carried out. If martial law is lifted, it is necessary to immediately hold presidential elections.

After the referendum, if it is held, regardless of the results, it is necessary to obtain a decision of the Constitutional Court. And the constitutional court does not work, because after requests, as I understand it, to the Constitutional Court about the legitimacy of the current government, the court evaded these decisions, and the head of the regime He simply ordered the guards not to let the chairman of the Constitutional Court into the working place. This is the kind of democracy there. And the chairman of the Supreme Court is just sitting in prison on corruption charges. It is well known that Ukraine has enough of this Corruption. But why was it necessary to send the chairman of the supreme court to prison to plant, it is not very clear. Although it is clear that it came to destruction their judicial system as such. This is another of the striking signs of “democracy” current Ukrainian authorities.

Therefore, this endless process is going nowhere. Nevertheless, we said that we are ready for a summit meeting. Listen, the Ukrainian side wants this meeting and offers this one Meeting. I said: ready, please come, we are definitely completely We will provide working conditions and safety, the guarantee is one hundred percent. But if We are told we want to meet with you, but you go there for this meeting, it seems to me that these are just their excessive requests to us. I repeat once again: if someone really wants to meet with us, we Ready. The best place for this is the capital of the Russian Federation, the hero city Moscow.” {SOURCE}

Vladimir Putin: “We have an open dialogue with President Trump. There is an agreement that in case of We can call, contact, and talk to each other. He knows that I am open to these conversations; And he too – I know about it. But so far, we have not had conversations in Europe based on the results of these consultations. Actually, it was difficult for me to do this, I had just come from China, I’m here. We have no problems with communications here. First. Secondly, regarding possible military contingents in Ukraine. This is one of the root causes of Ukraine’s involvement in NATO. Therefore, if there are some troops appear, especially now, in the course of hostilities, We proceed from the assumption that these will be legitimate targets for their destruction.

And if solutions are reached that lead to peace, to long-term peace, then I simply do not see any point in them being on the territory of Ukraine, that’s all. If agreements are reached, let no one doubt that Russia will comply with them in full. We will respect those guarantees security, which, of course, must be worked out both for Russia and for Ukraine. And I repeat once again: of course, Russia will agree to these agreements execute. In any case, no one has discussed this with us on a serious level, that’s all.”

Read more …

“Brussels, “the capital of diplomacy..”

• Peace in Ukraine ‘Easier Without Brussels Hawks Fueling War’ (Sp.)

It would be easier to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis if the “hawks” in Brussels stopped fueling the conflict, the Russian Embassy in Belgium said on Sunday. “It is obvious that if the ‘hawks’ in Brussels and other Western capitals stop fueling the war and support peace efforts, including those undertaken by US President [Donald] Trump, then it will become much easier to achieve peace,” the embassy wrote on Telegram. Instead, the Belgian government is becoming more and more Russophobic, misleading its citizens about Russia’s alleged intent to attack Brussels, the embassy added. Earlier in September, Belgian Defense Minister Thomas Francken said that Moscow was capable of “infiltrating” one of the NATO member states by 2030 under the pretext of protecting the Russian-speaking minority in it, while at the same time attacking Brussels, “the capital of diplomacy,” with drones and missiles.

“The flawed logic offered to ordinary citizens confirms that the current Belgian leadership is rapidly moving away from its previously declared moderation in foreign affairs and is increasingly joining the ranks of the most Russophobic part of the EU and NATO, pursuing an extremely dangerous course of inciting confrontation with our country,” the statement read. The Russian embassy dismissed the allegations, adding that the policies pursued by the Belgian government result in significant economic and social costs, which Belgian citizens are forced to pay.

Read more …

“..its days are numbered, it would fall apart on its own, there would no point in even leaving it..”

• Orban: EU’s Next 7-Year Budget to Become Last One If Bloc Does Not Change (Sp.)

The European Union is in a state of disintegration, and if there are no radical changes, the next seven-year budget will be the last one for the community, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
“I believe that the European Union has now entered a state of disintegration. And if it continues like this — and the likelihood of this is very high, — then the EU will go down in history as a depressing result of a noble experiment,” Orban said, speaking at the opening of the political season in the city of Kotcse. The Hungarian prime minister recalled that the European Union must now adopt a new common budget for 2028-2035.

“Even if we manage to pass this budget — which we may have serious doubts about — but if we do, it will be the last seven-year budget of the European Union. If things continue like this, I consider it completely impossible to pass a common budget after 2035,” he emphasized. The Hungarian Prime Minister proposed a possible way out of the crisis: the formation of four “circles,” so that the outermost one would include countries that want to cooperate in the field of security and energy security, which could include not only EU member states, but also Turkey, the United Kingdom and Ukraine; the second circle would include countries that have a common market, similar to the EU’s internal market; the third circle would include eurozone countries with a common monetary policy, and the fourth would unite countries that want a close political union with common political principles.

“Only such a flexible structure of circles can ensure interaction between European countries at different levels of cooperation… If we do not move to this order, the European Union will fall apart,” Orban concluded. Orban previously stated that if the European Union continued its economic policy, its days are numbered, it would fall apart on its own, there would no point in even leaving it, and the period during which something could be radically changed is two to three years. According to the politician, Europe will fall apart before our eyes if the liberals in power in Brussels are not replaced by representatives of patriotic governments, “purges” are needed, similar to those taking place in the United States.

Read more …

“Britain is being over-run again. First the Romans. Then the Anglo-Saxons. Then the Vikings. Then the Normans. In all previous times, the British fought. But not this time.”

• THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS (Paul Craig Roberts)

The British nation no longer exists. A Muslim immigrant-invader has been appointed Home Secretary. She is in charge of immigration, borders, and the police. When the ethnic British elected Starmer, they signed their death warrant. The 1939 English song, “There’ll always be an England,” turned out to be mistaken.

British political parties have concluded that ethnic British self-rule is racist. The Conservative Party chose an Indian Prime Minister. The Labor Party chose a Muslim Home Secretary. The leader in waiting of the Conservative Party is an African woman. The Mayor of London is a Muslim. Immigrant-invaders are also mayors of 18 British cities, including the largest ones. Rape of white ethnic British females by immigrant-invaders, due to non-enforcement of law, has become a de factor right of immigrant-invaders. Raped ethnic British females who complain about being raped risk arrest for “offensive statements” and “hate crimes” against a protected class–immigrant-invaders. The ethnic British people have recently been protesting their treatment by their government, but with insufficient force to be effective.

Britain is being over-run again. First the Romans. Then the Anglo-Saxons. Then the Vikings. Then the Normans. In all previous times, the British fought. But not this time. The Muslim world has claimed Britain. England as an ethnic British nation is a lost cause.


“> Read more …

“..the Left’s strategy is that of the kamikaze: to destroy Trump at the cost of destroying the Democratic Party.”

• Trump Astride at 7 Months (Victor Davis Hanson)

President Donald Trump’s greatest achievement within six months was simply ending illegal immigration as we had once known it—without “comprehensive immigration reform” or any other rhetorical trickery. It remains difficult to find, much less deport, the 10 to 12 million illegal aliens who entered in the last four years. Those who helped break the law, by design or indifference, now believe it was moral to destroy federal immigration law but immoral to uphold it. And it is still unclear whether former President Joe Biden’s handlers deliberately sabotaged their own border for political and demographic purposes out of sheer orneriness or utter incompetence. Many of the Left’s cherished totems—massive Green New Deal subsidies, the diversity/equity/inclusion industry, biological males competing in women’s sports, and the U.S. Agency for International Development revolving door—are either comatose or in their death throes.

The historic drop-off in military recruitment reversed shortly after Trump took office. Republican voter registration is up, and Democrat registration is down. Abroad, Trump finds remarkable successes. For now, there are pauses in the fighting between India and Pakistan, Egypt and Somalia, Cambodia and Thailand, Rwanda and Congo, Serbia and Kosovo, and Armenia and Azerbaijan. Much credit is due to Trump for brokering ceasefires. Iran will not get a bomb in the next four years—as seemed likely when Biden left office. The Middle East’s current most grotesque terrorist cadres and states—Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—are far weaker than they were when Trump entered office in January. There is at least some engagement in envisioning the outlines of a ceasefire in Trump’s inherited Ukraine War.

The rub is finding the degree of ordnance necessary to convince Putin that increasing Russia’s casualties to more than one million will endanger his own dictatorship sooner than destroy Ukraine. Breaking up the new three-billion-person China/India/Russia nexus hinges on ending the war. The economy is still strong. Gas prices are at historic lows. Increases in all types of energy production proceed full bore. Current gross domestic product, inflation, unemployment, and the stock market—all at one time or another said to be in a crisis state—remain strong. Talk of an impending recession or hyperinflation is mostly muted. No one quite knows either the full effects of Trump’s tariffs—especially given the injunctions issued by left-wing district justices—or of the promised over $10 trillion in foreign investments.

Much of Trump’s agenda will hinge on whether interest rates are lowered, Republicans survive the midterms, and the degree to which unelected left-wing lower-court justices can be stopped from hijacking the Constitution and de facto running the country. As for the Democrat opposition, there is no counter agenda, no shadow government responsible leadership, and no willingness to craft bipartisan legislation. Instead, the Left’s strategy is that of the kamikaze: to destroy Trump at the cost of destroying the Democratic Party. Otherwise, Democrats seek to prove so obnoxious in demonizing Trump that they create such mass hysteria that the weary electorate figuratively lies down, closes its eyes, covers its ears, and screams nonstop, “Make them all go away!”

Former foul-mouthed vice presidential candidate Tim Walz is now reduced to a ghoulish status. He recently boasted to an audience that rumors of Trump’s death—who survived two assassination attempts last summer—will thankfully one day prove true. The top of the failed ticket, Kamala Harris, wanders aimlessly without an office, constituency, audience, or ideas. To remain viable, she knows she must continue touring and speaking. But Harris accepts that the more anyone hears her word salads, the more they will remember her 2024 train wreck. Head of the Democratic Party, Ken Martin, now screams that Trump is a fascist. But by what standards does he judge? Did Trump try to take his rivals off state ballots? Does he advocate for destroying the filibuster, the Electoral College, and the 156-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court, or packing the Senate by admitting two new states?

Are local, state, and federal prosecutors—a la Bragg, James, Smith, and Willis—coordinating with the White House and the Justice Department to indict Trump’s current chief adversaries, such as Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, or Josh Shapiro? Did Trumpers hire a foreign spy to concoct a fake hit dossier on Democrat grandees? Are his subordinates now spreading it to the media. Are 51 conservative former CIA contractors and retired spooks swearing that Newsom or Harris is working with the Russians, Chinese, or any of our enemies? The greatest Democrat fear? That it has so institutionalized excessive executive orders, ad hominem lawfare, lower-court usurpation, state nullification of federal law, and federal intervention in higher education, the energy industry, and the nation’s open spaces that their own legacies empowered Trump and now will boomerang upon themselves—as the public applauds the karma.

Read more …

“And nearly five years later, every single thing Kingston predicted about the CV19 bioweapon vax has been proven true.”

• Truth About CV19 Vax Awakens Public – Karen Kingston (USAW)

Karen Kingston is a biotech analyst and former Pfizer employee that warned in her very first appearance on USAWatchdog in September of 2021 that the “CV19 Vaccines are Poison.” Nearly five years ago, Kingston said, “They are only intended to poison, mutate, cause genetic mutations, and kill adults and children. They contain advanced medical technologies called lipid nanoparticles that are made of hydrogel, which contain graphene oxide (poison to humans) . . .. There are strong immunosuppressants, different types of chemotherapies that could suppress your immune system while being injected by something that is going to highjack your immune system . . .. and actually produce this disease-causing genetic material that can cause cancers, inflammatory diseases, genetic disorders, infertility and etc.”

And nearly five years later, every single thing Kingston predicted about the CV19 bioweapon vax has been proven true. The latest example showing the deadly and debilitating disaster that is the CV19 vax comes from a new peer reviewed study that “Finds COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Increase Risk of Multiple Cancers — CONFIRMS Fears of ‘Turbo Cancer’ Epidemic.” There are also diseases of “epidemic” proportions with heart, immune system and brain function, to name a few more. Maybe this is why Florida, just today, ended all vaccine mandates. Many of these ‘vaccines’ contain deadly and debilitating mRNA. This ban also includes the CV19 “vaccine.” Kingston reports, “The Florida Department of Health, in partnership with the governor, is going to be working to end all vaccine mandates in Florida law, ALL of them, EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM,” says Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joe Ladapo.

President Trump is also questioning the CV19 vaccines and is demanding the vaccine makers justify the safety of their products. Trump said in part on Truth social, “With CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer, and I want it NOW. . .. I hope OPERATION WARP SPEED was as “BRILLIANT” as many say it was. If not, we all want to know about it, and why??? Kingston says, “President Trump is demanding that Pfizer shows its data. . .. One report from June of 2022 from Pfizer and people calling in and they recorded it. Pfizer recorded nearly five million adverse (CV19 vax) events across nearly 1.5 million people. The most common were neurological. There were nearly 750,000 nervous system disorders. . .. This is really scary. . .. This was in a period of 18 months.” Kingston says there were at least a dozen other CV19 vax studies that were never released and were kept from the public.

Did Pfizer stop the shots and alert President Trump about this? NO! Now, even top former CDC officials are trashing the CV19 shots. Kingston says, “Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, a CDC director, just repeated what HHS Secretary Kennedy said in 2021, and that is the CV19 vaccine is ‘the deadliest vaccine ever made.’ (So-called fact checkers said back in 2021 this was not true. In 2025, with millions of victims dead, it most certainly IS TRUE.) My point is Daskalakis repeated what Kennedy said in 2021 recently on MSNBC. They are putting it out there. They can’t undo the damage that has been done. RFK Jr. just revoked more than $500 million in research projects of mRNA. There have been a lot of movements, and it is interesting Trump is calling on the drug companies to step in and disclose their information. The last time they disclosed their information, it was horrible. . .. By the way, a lot of data they submitted to the FDA has never been released.”

Multiple top people at the CDC recently have quit or been fired. Also, the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the CV19 vax has been terminated. This move makes many now liable for adverse vaccine reactions. Maybe this is why CVS and Walgreens have restricted the CV19 vax after this announcement. Kingston calls what is happening now “a watershed moment of awakening” for the people who want the ugly truth to come out for the CV19 vax. Kingston says, “It’s all criminal, and this is what I have always said. This is the data.”

Now, Kingston says people need treatment to “detox” from the ill effects of the CV19 vax. Let’s hope the treatment starts soon and we don’t wait another five years to start saving lives of the CV19 vaccine injured.

Read more …

“DANCING FUCKING NURSES!

See, that’s why.”

• Thoughts on Robert F Kennedy Jr Congressional Testimony (CTH)

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. appeared before the Senate Finance Committee after U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez was fired and four senior officials have resigned amid growing tensions over vaccine policies and public health directives. I have not commented on what happened during the hearing, nor shared the numerous confrontational segments of wide distribution, because the background context of the hearing itself is challenging to discuss in stable mindset without blowing a blood pressure cuff. However, here goes.

COVID-19 is the name of the disease caused by the SARS-CoV2 virus. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) – Corona Virus Disease of 2019 (CoV2), colloquially referred to as “COVID-19”, was a man-made influenza (flu) virus created in a laboratory in Wuhan China, using “gain of function” research grants from the United States government. The virus escaped the laboratory and became a pandemic influenza virus as it spread throughout the world. The response to the release of the virus, the mitigation effort, was organized by global intelligence services and coordinated through western military cooperation. The military and intelligence services coordinated the mitigation efforts with various national health services, the compliance rules and subsequent restrictions upon Americans were a downstream consequence.

Everything within the mitigation process was fraught with governmental fear, widely ridiculous panic, over-the-top reactions and a level of political pressure never before seen in modern history. All of the rules and restrictions were genuinely crazy at the time events were happening, and in hindsight review none of the mitigation efforts made any sense whatsoever. Commonsense was thrown out the window as mass formation psychosis spread like wildfire with a hurricane. Approximately a year after the COVID-19 virus was unleashed a quickly created and untested genetically modifying serum called a “COVID-19 vaccine” was then promoted to the world as the most important element in virus mitigation. There was never, NEVER, a more heavily pushed and forced mandate by the entirety of western collective government, and global intelligence systems, as the modern compliance effort to force citizens to take the “vaccine.”

Ultimately, the vaccine rules, demands, mandates and economic compliance pressures, divided the various nations into two sets of people: (1) those who took the vaccine, and (2) those who did not. Much like the COVID-19 mitigation rules themselves, the pressure to take the vaccines was unrelenting. The United States Government, through various emergency declarations and legal processes, mandated compliance forcing the vaccine upon people who did not want to take the untested, unverified and eventually determined unsafe genetically modifying serum. Within the control systems deployed by government, including the panel who were recently questioning HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr., non-compliance with the “vaccine” mandate was not optional. Every regulatory and enforcement element of government was deployed to coerce and ultimately force compliance to take the vaccine.

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) was subverted, manipulated and legally twisted at the behest of government officers, including President Joe Biden using emergency powers. Families were torn apart as the dynamic of the compliant -vs- the non-compliant played out in every relationship. Socially, the cohesive nature of acceptable behavior was destroyed. Children were forcibly taken for vaccinations and parents who would not comply with the vaccine were legally held accountable, threatened, ostracized and ridiculed. During the panic, industries were taken over by government, hundreds of thousands of unnecessary and unneeded ventilators were built, portable hospitals were erected in football stadiums and convention centers by military and national guard, they were never used; forced lockdowns were mandated and travel was restricted by local, state and federal authorities.

People were not permitted to work; the economy was shut down and the workforce was divided into essential -vs- nonessential positions. All of it was madness. In the USA the entire weight of the scientific community and healthcare industry was leveraged by the intelligence agencies, military and government politicians, to force compliance with all the rules and regulations as determined by “experts” in the field of health and science. This was the largest psychological control operation ever deployed against the American people, and anyone who stood up against the system of forced compliance was immediately identified, removed, shutdown, had their social media presence blocked, and every element of the government regulation used to silence their dissent.

The President Biden administration used their emergency powers to collaborate with and force social media platforms and tech systems to control the electronic messaging and communication of the American people. Private industry was forced into compliance and small business were forcibly shutdown if they did not adhere to the rules and regulations of the various enforcement mechanisms. The federal, state and local police were used as armed compliance officers to monitor the behavior of the American people and control their activity. Government checkpoints were put into place to verify status as “essential” during travel, and vaccination compliance documents were required for commerce and social engagements.

Four years later the larger American population now realizes all of what took place was built on a foundation of fraud and lies. Four years later we discover the rules, regulations and compliance techniques were carried out with no official scientific basis. Worse still, the untested and unsafe vaccine -forced upon millions of Americans- is now identified as killing hundreds-of-thousands of innocent victims who were completely healthy until they were injected with a genetically modifying serum of unknown consequence. To protect themselves from the consequences of their conduct, all of the officials who engaged in the process of mandated vaccine deployment are now hiding the data in an effort to avoid the consequences.

This is the background for newly appointed and highly skeptical HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr to appear before congress and explain the changes he is making to a U.S. healthcare system that was shown to be completely broken by the example of SARS-CoV-2. I have not previously commented about the RFK Jr hearing, genuinely because discussing…. THE MURDEROUS FUCKING ACTS OF BIDEN’S GOVERNMENT DURING COVID-19 FORCED VACCINATIONS… is beyond my capacity for stable-minded discussion. Congress sits there, arguing narratives from perches, as if we the people have completely forgotten the madness that took over the entire healthcare system.

DANCING FUCKING NURSES!

See, that’s why.

Read more …

“..the reality is that he wants to occupy our city and break our Constitution..”

• Trump Threatens ‘War’ On Chicago Over Immigration (RT)

US President Donald Trump has ramped up threats to deploy federal troops to Chicago for an immigration crackdown, warning that the city “will soon find out” why he renamed the Defense Department the “Department of WAR.” The warning follows Trump’s order to dramatically ramp up deportations in Democrat-led cities after riots swept Los Angeles earlier this year. On Saturday, Trump posted on Truth Social what appears to be an AI-generated meme showing him in military uniform with the Chicago skyline, helicopters, and flames in the background. Above the image, Trump wrote: “I love the smell of deportations in the morning… Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.”

The caption to the meme read: “Chipocalypse Now,” a play on the 1979 film ‘Apocalypse Now’, which includes the line: “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” Trump offered no further details.Trump’s warning has drawn massive pushback from local officials. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker wrote on X that the president “is threatening to go to war with an American city,” adding, “Illinois won’t be intimidated by a wannabe dictator.” Illinois Representative Mike Quigley told Politico at Chicago’s Mexican Independence Day parade that Trump spoke “like a true tyrant.” “The President’s threats are beneath the honor of our nation, but the reality is that he wants to occupy our city and break our Constitution,” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson wrote on X.

Illegal immigration has been a central focus of Trump’s presidency. On Inauguration Day, he vowed to deport “millions and millions” of undocumented immigrants. Since then, he has expanded border security, tripled Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention funding, cut humanitarian programs, and detained thousands of illegal migrants, among other regulatory measures. Saturday’s post adds to Trump’s repeated threats to include Chicago in his list of cities targeted for expanded immigration enforcement. In June, his administration deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles, followed by Washington, DC, after mass pro-immigration riots. Trump has also suggested that Baltimore and New Orleans could face similar measures.

Read more …

Over 50 years.

“..564,258 deaths per year, similar to the global mortality burden associated with armed conflict..”

• 29 Million Deaths Linked To EU and US Sanctions (RT)

Western sanctions contributed to nearly 29 million excess deaths worldwide over five decades – a toll comparable to that of wars, according to a recent study. The research, published last month in the Lancet Global Health, has gained attention around the world. Examining age-specific mortality in 152 countries from 1971 to 2021, using statistics from the Global Sanctions Database, researchers compared mortality rates before and after sanctions, tracking long-term trends to estimate their toll in excess deaths. They focused on three sanctioning authorities: The UN, the US, and the EU (and its predecessor). “We estimate that unilateral sanctions over this period caused 564,258 deaths per year, similar to the global mortality burden associated with armed conflict,” the authors noted, with a total of 28.8 million deaths across the 51-year span.

We found the strongest effects for unilateral, economic, and US sanctions, whereas we found no statistical evidence of an effect for UN sanctions. Most excess deaths occurred among the most vulnerable – the very young and the elderly. “Our findings reveal that unilateral and economic sanctions, particularly those imposed by the USA, lead to substantial increases in mortality, disproportionately affecting children younger than 5 years,” the study said, noting that the age group accounted for 51% of the total death toll. The report found that the sanctions undermine economic and food security, often causing hunger and health problems among the poorest. Additionally, the dominance of the dollar and euro in global transactions allowed the US and EU to amplify the impact of their sanctions.

At last year’s BRICS summit, member nations called for “unlawful unilateral coercive measures” to be eliminated, warning of their disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable. Members have increasingly avoided the dollar “to shield themselves from US arbitrariness,” Moscow has said. At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin this week, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for a fairer global governance system based on mutual respect and opposition to Western dominance. Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the proposal as especially relevant when “some countries still do not abandon their desire for dictatorship in international affairs.”

Read more …

What i see coming is deep alright.

• US in ‘Very Deep Negotiations’ With Hamas to End Gaza Conflict – Trump (ET)

The United States is in “very deep negotiations with Hamas” to bring an end to the current conflict in the Gaza Strip, President Donald Trump announced on Sept. 5. Hamas, which continues to hold hostages taken from Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, has so far rejected any deals to end the nearly two-year Israeli military campaign across the Gaza Strip, despite widespread death and destruction throughout the territory. Addressing the ongoing hostage situation and the surrounding conflict, Trump reiterated calls for Hamas to release all of the remaining hostages in a bed to end the carnage. “We said let them all out right now. Let them all out, and much better things will happen for them. But if you don’t let them all out, it’s going to be a tough situation. It’s going to be nasty. That’s my opinion. Israel’s choice, but that’s my opinion,” the president said during a White House press briefing.

In recent weeks, Israeli forces have been ramping up operations in Gaza City, which is located towards the northern end of the embattled strip of territory. The Israeli military has claimed responsibility for strikes targeting high-rises in the city, and footage has shown strikes toppling at least one tower there. As many as 20 captives may still be alive, though Trump said “there could be some that have recently died, is what I’m hearing.” “I hope that’s wrong,” he added. The bodies of around 30 more captives also remain in the Gaza Strip. Hamas released a video on Sept. 5 with Israeli hostage Guy Gilboa-Dalal. In the video, apparently dated Aug. 28, Gilboa-Dalal states that he and other hostages are being held in Gaza City and fear they will be killed in the intensifying Israeli operation.

Trump offered few specifics about what Hamas is requesting in negotiations for the release of the remaining hostages. “They’re asking for some things that are fine,” Trump began, when asked about Hamas’s demands, but said the initial Hamas attack on Israel—in which around 1,200 were killed and thousands more were wounded—must be taken into consideration in the negotiations. Throughout the conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has articulated a goal to ensure Hamas is defeated and that the Gaza Strip can never become a haven for the group or similar militants opposed to Israel.

In an Aug. 10 speech, Netanyahu said the Gaza City takeover plan is not part of an indefinite Israeli occupation of the strip. At the same time, he indicated the plan is for Israel to have “overriding security responsibilities” for the territory, while allowing a “non-Israeli, peaceful civil administration. Netanyahu said Gaza’s post-Hamas civil authority must be one that “doesn’t educate its children for terror, doesn’t pay terrorists, and doesn’t launch terrorist attacks against Israel.” Netanyahu said these terms would disqualify the Palestinian Authority—which has partial governing authority in the West Bank—from stepping in as Gaza’s eventual civil authority.

In a Sept. 6 statement, Hamas representatives said, “The movement affirms its openness to any ideas or proposals that achieve a permanent ceasefire, a comprehensive withdrawal of the occupation forces from the Gaza Strip, unconditional entry of aid, and a real prisoner exchange through serious negotiations via mediators.”

Read more …

“rich natural resource reserves, estimated at $75 trillion..”

• Globalists’ Attacks on Russia Linked to Its Rich Natural Resources – Dmitriev (Sp.)

Russian Federal Agency for Mineral Resources (Rosnedra) has completed the development of a geological exploration program for new Russian regions and is coordinating this work, the Agency’s representative earlier said. Globalists’ attacks on Russia are linked to its rich natural resource reserves, estimated at $75 trillion, Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev, who is also the Russian president’s special representative for investment and economic cooperation with foreign countries, says.

“Russia is Number 1 in the world with an estimated $75 trillion natural resource value. That’s also why it is constantly attacked by globalists and the deep state. Russia has partnered and will build new partnerships with the leading countries for joint resource development,” Dmitriev said on X. According to estimates by the international agency Statista for 2021, which RDIF CEO cites, after Russia, the top five countries in terms of natural resource reserves include the United States ($45 trillion), Saudi Arabia ($34 trillion), Canada ($33 trillion) and Iran ($27 trillion).

Read more …

“..capital from all over the world will be trying to get off the railroad tracks because gold and silver cannot default.”

• Gold & Silver Sniffing Out Risk & Fear – Bill Holter (USAW)

Precious metals expert and financial writer Bill Holter worked side by side with his business partner Jim Sinclair for more than a decade. No two people knew more about markets and money than them. Two years ago, Sinclair, aka “Mr. Gold,” passed away. Now, the baton has passed to Holter, who is the new “Mr. Gold.” Holter warns one explosive new all-time high, hitting day after day, for the yellow metal is signaling big trouble coming. Holter explains, “There is a huge breakout. In my opinion, the metals market is sniffing out risk and fear. . .. They funded literally trillions of dollars by borrowing in yen. Now, what has happened, the Japanese yield curve has gone from basically zero to over 1.6 % on a ten-year (bond) and 3.2% on a 30-year (bond).

So, that carry trade now is being squeezed because the yen has gone higher . . . your cost to carry has gone higher because Japanese yields have gone higher. So, the gold market is looking at the Japanese carry trade in the process of blowing up. It is sovereign bonds across the world. If you look at interest rates worldwide, they are actually going higher.” If the Fed cuts interest rates later this month, it may not be good news. The bond market could rebel. Holter says, “You could see bond prices drop and yields go higher. There is also a very high probability with lower Fed rates that the dollar weakens.” Earlier this year, Holter called the global economy a hyper-levered house of cards. The leverage has gotten worse, much worse.

Holter says, “There is a turbocharge to this, and when I say turbocharge, it’s fear. It’s fear of bankruptcy. It’s fear of default. The world is clearly over-levered, and there are going to be sovereign defaults left and right going forward. The only two monies that cannot default on the planet are gold and silver.” So, is there going to be a big crash coming soon? Holter says, I don’t know if it is going to be September, October or whatever, but you look at the math and the valuations. The valuations are ridiculous. Look at the math on sovereign debt all over the world. Look at the math on the amount of debt outstanding and margin debt, and this is a huge credit bubble. Credit bubbles do not go away quietly. Credit bubbles burst and markets collapse. The problem now is there is so much debt in the system and the system is so big the central banks together cannot stand against the tsunami of bankruptcies that are coming. There is no white knight this time.”

Holter (aka, the new Mr. Gold) says, “The vast majority of wealth will seek a safe haven that cannot evaporate or be taken away. It’s going to be gold and silver. You are going to see a bull market in gold and silver unlike any bull market in any field ever. . .. Gold and silver will make financial history because capital from all over the world will be trying to get off the railroad tracks because gold and silver cannot default.” In closing, Mr. Gold says if you just divide the amount of official gold held in the US Treasury by the official US government debt, you get about $135,000 per ounce gold price and around $6,700 per ounce silver price. Holter says with $2 quadrillion in derivative debt, who knows how high the price of gold and silver can go. One thing for sure is gold and silver cannot default.

Read more …

Well, the jobs numbers were pretty bad… Let’s start there.

• Bessent Doubles Down On Tariffs, Predicts Economic Surge (ZH)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pushed back Sunday against growing concerns that the U.S. economy is sliding toward a “jobs recession,” defending the administration’s trade policies, tariffs, and fiscal strategy while signaling confidence that growth will accelerate by year’s end. In a wide-ranging interview on NBC’s Meet the Press (full interview at the bottom), Bessent rejected forecasts from economists at Moody’s Analytics and elsewhere who have warned that slowing hiring trends and manufacturing job losses point to deeper weakness. Instead, he argued that recent data is noisy, revisions are likely, and that President Donald Trump’s economic agenda remains on track to deliver a “substantial acceleration” in the fourth quarter.

Host Kristen Welker opened the interview by citing Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi, who recently described the U.S. slowdown as a “jobs recession.” Asked if he agreed, Bessent pushed back: “We’re not going to do economic policy off of one number,” Bessent said. “Good policies are in place that are going to create good high-paying jobs for the American people.” He added that August is “the noisiest month of the year” for employment data and stressed that significant revisions are common: “We need good data before we jump to conclusions.” Pressed on manufacturing job losses since the April rollout of the administration’s new tariffs, Bessent urged patience, noting that factories “can’t be built overnight” citing a “record amount of investment intentions” already underway.

He highlighted July’s passage of the administration’s flagship tax and infrastructure package – the One Big Beautiful Bill, which included full expensing for factories and equipment. According to Bessent, many companies were “holding back” investment until the bill passed and are now planning major capital expenditures and expansions. Still, U.S. manufacturing employment has declined by 42,000 jobs since April, even as the White House has promised a “manufacturing renaissance”” Bessent attributed some of the perceived weakness to flawed data collection and suggested that upcoming revisions could wipe out hundreds of thousands of jobs previously reported under the Biden administration. “We’re going to get revisions next week that may be as big as an 800,000-job downward revision,” Bessent said. “I’m not sure what these people who collect the data have been doing, but we need good data.”

The interview grew tense as Welker pressed Bessent on widespread reports from U.S. manufacturers that tariffs are increasing costs and forcing layoffs. Companies including John Deere, Nike, Black+Decker, and the Big Three automakers have warned investors that tariffs are adding hundreds of millions – in some cases billions – in unexpected expenses. Goldman Sachs recently estimated that 86% of tariff costs have ultimately been borne by U.S. companies and consumers. Bessent rejected those conclusions outright. “For every John Deere, we have companies telling us the tariffs have helped their business,” he said, citing meetings with executives at Treasury. “They’re increasing capital expenditures and expanding employment. And if things are so bad, why was GDP up 3.3% and why is the stock market at a new high?”

When asked directly whether tariffs amount to a tax on U.S. consumers, Bessent responded flatly: “No, I don’t.” He also dismissed Goldman Sachs’s analysis, quipping: “I made a good career trading against Goldman Sachs.”

Read more …

X thread.

• Once Were Relevant (el gato malo)

i don’t think western europe and canada understand how little their opinions matter anymore. once, at least europe was relevant, but today? both are failing, no-growth, collapsing demographic failures that are rapidly losing anything like their high trust, flourishing cultures as they are eaten by the davos/WEF culture collapsers and the occupying armies they invite. both are dying regimes held up by censorship and political suppression. they are overrun by barbarian invaders to whom they are too effete and butthurt to advocate resistance. the contrast with eastern europe, which refuses to fall for this societal suicide pact (likely because they have living memory memories of communism) could not be more stark in both economics and culture.

of course the EC elites hate an american return to vibrance and strength. it highlights how badly they themselves lack this. their misery demands company that america will no longer provide. it will be fun to watch and see if they can learn to defend themselves. it’s not that america is dying. it’s that we’re getting ready to live again by escaping this nonsense. it’s europe who is on the table in critical care. i hope their smug senses of self-importance can keep them warm in the coming conquest by caliphate and the green death of watermelon politics. those who advocate the US imitating the serfdom surrender of europe and canada have been far too dominant for far too long. and their 15 minutes are up. i wonder when spencer will realize this?

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1964688908857250278

Owls

Scott

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 15 2025

Aug 152025
 
 August 15, 2025  Posted by at 9:52 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  64 Responses »


Joseph Mallord William Turner The Tenth Plague of Egypt 1802

 

• Without Zelensky, Peace Has A Chance (Tara Reade)
• Kremlin Reveals Details Of Putin-Trump Summit (RT)
• Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Europe Needs to Put Up or Shut Up” (CTH)
• US Efforts To Settle Ukraine Conflict ‘Energetic And Sincere’ – Putin (RT)
• Can Putin Pass the Test? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Could Trump End War in Ukraine In Meeting With Putin? (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Kiev Tries To Kill As Many Civilians As It Can Right Before Talks (RT)
• Elie Honig Nuked Left’s Talking Points on Trump DC Crime Crackdown (Margolis)
• How Hillary Planned to Reward Schiff for Undermining Trump (Margolis)
• Trump Signs Executive Order To Fill Reserve With Critical Drugs (JTN)
• Treasury Secretary Bessent Calls For Trading Ban In Congress (JTN)
• The Boomer Mirage (Stylman)
• Sen. Kennedy: Democrats Need to ‘Buy Some Testicles’ on Amazon (Margolis)
• Melania Trump Threatens Hunter Biden With $1Bln Lawsuit for Defamation (Sp.)

 

 

Orban
https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1955932465631256973

Solomon

UN

Kirk

Big beautiful trap
https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1955641913815810167

 

 

 

 

Mere hours before “The Summit”, everyone has an opinion. I just found 2 cents in my own back pocket.

First: these two guys have a lot of respect for each other, that leads everything.

I think both Trump and Putin want the summit to succeed, at least in a preparatory fashion. If it’s a failure, they can blame each other, but no chance it would look good on themselves either. Some claim a lack of preparation on one side or the other, but I bet they both come very well prepared. There may still be differences, they come from very different positions, but it won’t be from lack of preparation.

We can wonder if Trump has fully digested Russia’s view of what happened in the past 10 years, what started the “war” etc., but that, only they know. Trump has the constant clatter and clamor of Lindsey Graham, Zelensky and Europe in his ears telling him what to think and do, but if anything that will just make him eager to shut them down. We may come away surprised, but it’s more likely they pass it all down to the heavy delegations, and meet again in fall.

There’s no chance they will part company only to make more war. That will not happen.

• Without Zelensky, Peace Has A Chance (Tara Reade)

In 1867, the Russian empire sold Alaska to the US for $7.2 million. Perhaps the location of the upcoming summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is a nod and a wink to such a great deal? Maybe Putin will like Alaska so much he will have seller’s remorse? Trump promised America a golden age coming that included ending the US involvement in Ukraine. No more US taxpayer money, no more weapons to Ukraine. No more escalation towards a nuclear war. Finally, that campaign promise looks to be coming to fruition with the upcoming summit to be held between the two superpower presidents, Trump and Putin, in Alaska. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky publicly dismissed Trump’s peace plans. The last time Zelensky protested a movement towards peace he had European leaders rallying behind him.

This time proves more tricky for the illegitimate president of Ukraine with his people protesting forced conscriptions and the bloody losses of men and women for a war feeding the EU and Washington. Zelensky’s firing of an anti-corruption team triggered the latest uprising as he still will not hold elections. In short, Zelensky’s time is done and he will need to flee, along with his corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs, to the nearest European villa haven or face the possible fate of many unpopular dictators – death. Trump has many reasons for wanting this peace summit with Putin to be a success. First, he is by all accounts, ducking hits by his base about not releasing the Epstein files. The MAGA base is loyal but practical, and if the economy does not improve and foreign wars continue, they will turn their back on the Republican Party, not just Trump.

Also, the Ukraine conflict represents Biden and the old guard. Trump has repeatedly said, “This is NOT my war.” Trump has a certain respect for Putin. However, as time passes and old hawks like senator Lindsay Graham salivate for more blood and death, Trump’s goal of being the ‘peace president’ moves farther out of reach. The American people are over Ukraine, they are sick of American foreign adventures on taxpayer money that have left America’s infrastructure and morale in tatters. Trump is trying to undo decades of lies about wars and domestic policy now revealed to the public. The American distrust in media is at an all-time high due to the years of lies about wars, Covid, and domestic issues. This culminates in collective cynicism while social media allows for examinations of truths.

The cultural divide and frustrations in America are deeply felt but the main concern for Americans is the ability to get access to affordable food, housing, and medical care. All of this has been in crisis especially since the Biden regime drove the US economy into the ground raising the debt ceiling and focusing on endless wars.

The economic allure of Russia and America having positive productive trade is not lost on Trump and his leadership. Russia has risen above sanctions with a strong economy, and BRICS has been growing stronger. The attempts to isolate Russia have failed, while the collective West has remained under the thumb of past US hawks. This has brought the near collapse of some of the Western European economies. Trump at his heart is a businessman interested in economic competition rather than war. His current administration is a mix of old guard neocon hawks and anti-war doves. This curious mixture with strong influences from Israel means Trump’s foreign policy still somewhat aligns with Biden’s and Obama’s – and that is a comparison he wishes to distance himself from.

Both the US and Russia know that Ukraine employs terrorist tactics, killing civilians and targeting journalists, which is problematic to any signed legal agreements. There is also the fact that Moscow does not consider Zelensky a legitimate president since his term ran out and he canceled elections. How legal would any peace agreements signed with him be? Perhaps the answer will come from the US president in the form of guarantees of no more weapons or funding to Ukraine, but these would have to involve binding commitments – unlike earlier empty promises of no eastward NATO expansion.

Ultimately, Zelensky is less than inconsequential to the future of global politics – he is a liability to the West. The real end to this proxy war between the US/NATO and Russia will be decided between Trump and Putin. It will likely start with broad brush strokes of a peace agreement, with details, boundaries and consequences laid out later in bureaucratic form. There will be posturing, but also economic and trade deals made. Perhaps a joint mission in space could be one positive outcome? The lifting of sanctions and putting an end to the Russophobia campaign fueled by Obama and Biden? A more positive approach to disarmament of nuclear weapons? While Putin might not buy back Alaska for Russia, there may be some movement to final peace in regards to Ukraine. If the EU falls into line with the US to drop this proxy war, stop supplying weapons, and not allow Ukraine into NATO, then real peace does have some hope.

The world may even have a chance of having a new golden age, rather than a future of nuclear ash.

Read more …

“Putin and Trump will not only deliver a short opening statement but also hold a joint press conference after the talks..”

• Kremlin Reveals Details Of Putin-Trump Summit (RT)

The summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, on Friday will focus not only on the Ukraine conflict but on a broader security agenda and involve several top Russian officials, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Ushakov said that “final preparations” were underway for the meeting on Friday, which will take place at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. Given the short notice for the summit, “everything is being done in an intensive mode,” including tackling several technical issues, including visa-related matters, he added. Ushakov said the summit will begin at approximately 11:30 a.m. local time (19:30 GMT) with a one-on-one conversation between Putin and Trump, accompanied by interpreters.

“Then, there will be negotiations in the format of delegations, and these negotiations will continue over a working lunch,” he said. The Kremlin aide noted the very high level of the Russian delegation, which he said would include Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Ushakov himself, Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries Kirill Dmitriev, who has been a key figure in the Ukraine settlement process. “In addition to the presidents, five members from each delegation will participate in the negotiations,” he said, adding that “of course, a group of experts will also be nearby.”

Regarding the agenda, it is “obvious” that the central issue in the talks will be the Ukraine conflict, Ushakov said, adding, though, that “broader objectives of ensuring peace and security will also be addressed, as well as current and most acute international and regional issues.”There will also be an exchange of views “regarding the further development of bilateral cooperation, including in the trade and economic spheres,” Ushakov noted, adding that such ties have “enormous and, unfortunately, still untapped potential.” Ushakov confirmed that Putin and Trump will not only deliver a short opening statement but also hold a joint press conference after the talks. He said the duration of the talks “would depend on how the discussion goes” and confirmed “the delegation will return [to Russia] immediately after the negotiations conclude.”

Read more …

With more summit details. I understand talks start 30 min earlier than announced.

• Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Europe Needs to Put Up or Shut Up” (CTH)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the upcoming summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump. Bessent notes the backseat demands from EU leaders with their position on the Trump negotiation strategy has worn thin amid their hypocrisy. “It’s time to put up or shut up,” Bessent says, when talking about how the EU is still facilitating the economic purchases of Russian energy products, while simultaneously demanding Trump do this and that.

I am cautiously optimistic for a positive outcome from this summit.
• Date: Friday August 15, 2025
• Venue: Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska
• Anchorage is 4 hours behind Eastern Time zone.

DELEGATION:
USA President Donald Trump – Russian Federation, President Vladimir Putin
USA Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt – Russian Federation, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov
USA Secretary of State, Marco Rubio – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
USA Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth – Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov
USA Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent – Russian Finance Minister, Anton Siluanov
USA Envoy Steve Witkoff – Russian Envoy Kirill Dmitriev

President Trump will depart the White House early Friday morning ET. Trump is expected in Anchorage midafternoon Eastern time on Friday. The initial meeting with Putin is expected to take place at 3:30 pm ET (11:30 am local) with just the two leaders and translators. Following the meeting, President Trump and President Putin with hold a lunch with members of delegations from both countries. The two leaders then plan to hold a joint press conference following their meeting, White House and Kremlin officials said Thursday morning.

Read more …

“She added that the US president would prefer not to impose any new sanctions on Russia but instead resolve the situation through diplomacy.”

• US Efforts To Settle Ukraine Conflict ‘Energetic And Sincere’ – Putin (RT)

The US is making a genuine effort to stop the fighting in Ukraine and reach agreements that would account for the interests of all parties involved, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said. Putin is scheduled to meet with US President Donald Trump on Friday in Anchorage, Alaska, to discuss ways of ending the Ukraine conflict, as well as steps toward normalizing relations between Moscow and Washington. On Thursday, Putin met with top government officials in Moscow to discuss the upcoming summit and “the stage where we are with the current US administration.”

He said that the American leadership is making “quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities” and working to “create long-term conditions of peace between our countries and in Europe, and in the world as a whole.” Putin added that this process could be further advanced if Russia and the US reach agreements on strategic offensive weapons control in the next stages of negotiations. Among the officials present at Thursday’s meeting were Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, all of whom will be traveling to Alaska on Friday to take part in the Putin-Trump summit. According to the Kremlin, the event will begin with a one-on-one conversation between the two leaders, followed by a meeting of the Russian and US delegations.

Trump has described the summit as a “feel-out meeting” that will help him determine whether the Ukraine conflict can be resolved. He has said that if the talks go well, he may seek a second round of negotiations involving Putin and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday that Trump will pursue all possible options for a peaceful end to the conflict during his meeting with Putin. She added that the US president would prefer not to impose any new sanctions on Russia but instead resolve the situation through diplomacy.

Read more …

Not a clue why he says that Putin would ..”agree to such a meeting with zero preparatory work..”

He has every single detail in his head, it’s how he works, no need for paper. And on top of that he has 4 of his top advisors with him. How does that add up to zero?

• Can Putin Pass the Test? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Yesterday President Trump in his public statements validated my conclusion that Trump does not know what the Russian position is and that he is going to the meeting to find out what the “parameters” are and that he sees the meeting as a “feel-out meeting” to see whether the conflict in Ukraine can be ended. In other words, no solution is expected from the meeting for which no preparatory work has been done. So what are the high-blown expectations for the meeting based on? Why build up such expectations when there is no proposal on the table? Where is the “acceptable” offer that Yury Ushakov found in the non-proposal that convinced Putin to go to Alaska? Is the answer that the purpose of the meeting is to put Putin on the spot by creating expectations of success that cannot be achieved?

French President Macron said that Trump told him that he intends to “obtain a ceasefire in Ukraine during the meeting with Putin.” When Putin doesn’t agree to halt Russia’s successful offensive, is the plan to blame Putin for wrecking the chance for peace? Will this help weaken BRICS by Putin being blamed for secondary tariffs imposed on India, China, Brazil, South Africa? (From Bloomberg today: Raising the stakes. Donald Trump warned he would impose “very severe consequences” if Vladimir Putin didn’t agree to a ceasefire agreement, following a call with European leaders ahead of his meeting with the Russian president. But Tass reported that the two will hold a joint press conference after the talks. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Europe it’s “put up or shut up time” when it comes to sanctions on nations that buy Russian energy.)

That is what it looks like. The Ukrainian front is collapsing. A ceasefire would halt the Russian advance and give the Ukrainian force time to stabilize and reinforce its positions. This is important to the West, because once Russia completes the task of driving the Ukrainian forces out of all of the territory that has been reincorporated into the Russian Federation, there is no land in Ukrainian hands for Trump to swap with Putin. As I have reported a number of times, a land-swap is not one of the conditions on Putin’s list. What Putin means by “the root cause of the conflict” is Russia’s sense of insecurity with NATO and US nuclear missiles on Russia’s border. When the Soviet Union put nuclear missiles in Cuba as an offset to the nuclear missiles Washington had put in Turkey on the Soviet Union’s border, Washington was intensely upset. Today the US has missiles on Russia’s border and the opportunity to have missile bases on Russia’s borders ranging from Finland to the South Caucus, which is a large multiplication of the one Soviet missile base in Cuba.

So if one base in Cuba made the US uncomfortable, imagine how uncomfortable Russia is with the prospect of nuclear missiles along the border for thousands of kilometers. American and European politicians and policymakers have not acknowledged that the root cause of the conflict is NATO on Russia’s border. The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO and being added to the territory hosting US missile bases was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Trump’s land swap and ceasefire do not address Russia’s security problem. The root cause of the conflict is Russia’s sense of insecurity. That can only be solved by getting NATO off of Russia’s borders. This is the purpose of the mutual security agreement that Putin has been trying to negotiate for a number of years only to be given the cold shoulder as by the Biden regime during December 2021-February 2022.

Ask yourselves if you think Trump is in a sufficiently powerful position to override both the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony and the interest of the American military/security complex. As long as the Wolfowitz Doctrine holds, and it has not been repudiated by President Trump, the Secretary of State, or Congress, the US is committed to “preventing the rise of any country that can serve as a constraint on American unilateralism.” As this is the stated commitment, how can NATO be removed from Russia’s border? President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961 that the rise of the Cold War with the Soviet Union prevented the demobilization of the American war machine that normally followed the end of war. Instead, a powerful military/industrial complex has risen with roots in nearly every state, which gives it enormous power in Congress and among state governors.

That was 64 years ago. Since that time the power of the military/security complex has multiplied. Is this institutionalized power willing to take the hit to its budget and power from a mutual security agreement with its principal enemy? The questions I am asking are the determining questions. Nothing else that is said matters. Yet, these essential questions are not a part of the discussion in Washington, in Europe, or in the Kremlin. It is as if none of the participants in a growing conflict that could be terminable for life on Earth have any idea of the consequences of their decisions. Why suddenly did Trump who a couple of days before yesterday said he didn’t want to meet with Putin demand a meeting within the week when Trump doesn’t even know what the “parameters” are? How can a serious meeting be held when a principal participant doesn’t even know what the opponent’s position is?

Why did Putin agree to such a meeting with zero preparatory work that exposes him to tremendous pressure to capitulate? This represents the total failure of Putin’s advisors. It indicates to the West that Russia is a weak defender of its interest. Perhaps more pressure will be all it takes to bring Russia in line with US hegemony. If Trump goes into the meeting with this attitude, Putin’s choice will be to capitulate or to bring down more demonization on him and Russia for blocking peace. It does look like Kirill Demitriev and Steve Witcoff, both globalists, have succeeded in setting up Putin and Russia. What is on test in Alaska is Putin’s mettle.

Read more …

Repeating the tired notion of Russia losing more people than Ukraine, by now disqualifies you.

• Could Trump End War in Ukraine In Meeting With Putin? (Victor Davis Hanson)

This week there’s a scheduled summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump, and it’s scheduled to be held in Anchorage, Alaska. Apparently, this was a place that offered a great deal of security. It’s a smaller, controllable city. It’s in the United States, but on the other hand, it’s one of the closest places, major cities, to Russia itself from the United States. We don’t have a very good history of summits. And many summits—as you remember, in March of 2017, Antony Blinken, the Biden secretary of state, and Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, met with their Chinese communist counterparts. And they were dressed down and humiliated and really didn’t say anything. And what followed then from that was further Chinese aggression toward Taiwan, the Chinese balloon, etc. So these summits are very important.

One thing that we’re not hearing from the Left and the Never-Trump Right is that Donald Trump is a “Putin asset,” a “Putin puppet.” I’m quoting pretty loosely, but accurately, what former National Intelligence Director James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan have been saying for 10 years on social media and on cable news. And the reason they’re not saying that Donald Trump is a Putin puppet and going to be had is that he gave Putin an “Art of the Deal” leeway when he first came into office and he doubled down on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He basically was saying, “Putin, see, I’m giving you an opportunity.” Putin did not take it. Donald Trump pivoted and found out that he had to use leverage against Putin. And the leverage he’s going to use, or has threatened to use, is far more deleterious to Russia and far more dangerous and far more ambitious than anything imagined by former President Joe Biden, namely, a secondary boycott.

That would be to not trade with countries that trade with Russia. That could include the two largest countries in the world, India and China. India had very close relations with us. We were trying to triangulate India against China. They have their own border disputes and long-standing disagreements. But if we secondary boycott India, that will be a rumination of our relations with India. So, what I’m getting at is Donald Trump’s taking a lot of risk, a lot of risk in using a secondary boycott to pressure Putin. Ninety percent of the issues are already solved. They have been for a year or two. We’re now in a deadlock. Russia claims they’ve only lost 200,000 dead. But they more likely lost a million dead, wounded, missing, taken prisoner. We don’t know the exact ratios of each. And probably Ukraine with their dead, missing, wounded, prisoners around, I don’t know, 400,000 or 500,000. So this is like a Stalingrad or a Somme or a Verdun.

We know the general parameters. We’ve discussed them before. Ukraine will not be in NATO. That’s a concession to Putin. But it really isn’t a concession because, privately, a lot of the NATO members did not want Ukraine because they had no intention of going all the way to the Donbas, should Russia invade again, on Article 5 of the NATO doctrine. They were not going to follow that. So they don’t want Ukraine in NATO. Neither do we. I’m not sure Ukraine even does, privately.Secondly, there was no military ability. There’s a moral argument for, but no military ability, to take back Crimea and take back the Donbas. So what we’re discussing now is that the Russian army is about a hundred miles west from the border in Crimea, the Donbas, and then further west. In total, about a hundred miles. That would be the DMZ—in other words, the Demilitarized Zone, where we have a ceasefire, an armistice.

And then we would haggle in a peace conference over exchanges of territory on either side. That’s the outline of peace. The problem is that—there’s two problems. One: Ukraine’s Constitution says no land—no land, not Crimea, not Donbas—nothing can be ceded to a foreign country without a plebiscite. And we don’t know what the Ukrainian people will say. They polled they’re tired of the war. They polled they don’t want to give one inch of their sovereign territory. On the other side, Putin himself knows that he has to report to the oligarchic and military hierarchy. And he doesn’t know whether a hundred miles west, in addition to institutionalizing the possession of Crimea and the Donbas for good, whether that extra hundred miles from the border territory will justify the enormous losses, humiliation that the Russian military has suffered.

So, we’re gonna have this summit. And Trump is going to say to Putin, “You can have no NATO Ukraine. You can have the Crimea. You can have the Donbas. I think I can get Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to agree. But we’ve gotta fight over how far west you are and whether you have to go back or will stay in place.”And then he’s going to have to tell Zelenskyy, “We’re supplying you. That’s the only leverage we have against Putin, along with a secondary boycott. But you have to decide whether you’re going to cede the Donbas, Crimea, and some of the territory. Because if you don’t, there’s not going to be peace. And if there’s not going to be peace, we can’t assure you a blank check forever.”

So, that’s what the parameters are. And one thing that we do know, the Never-Trump Right, as I said, and the Left have ceased the “Donald Trump is a puppet,” “Donald Trump is a sellout,” “Donald Trump is a Russian asset” because nobody in the last four years, in the Biden administration, has met with the Russians and especially the last three years since the war started. Nobody made the attempt.= So, at least we have the principles: talking to each other, we know what the outlines of a peace agreement are. And it’s just a matter of what each president has to take back to the powers that be and see if they’ve given too many or not enough concessions.

Read more …

A tactic, a pattern…

• Kiev Tries To Kill As Many Civilians As It Can Right Before Talks (RT)

On August 14, 2025, Russian officials reported Ukrainian drone strikes on the border cities of Belgorod and Rostov-on-Don, killing and injuring civilians. Rostov saw an apartment building struck, with over a dozen casualties; in Belgorod, three civilians were hurt when a drone hit a car downtown. This came two days after the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) alleged that Ukrainian forces were preparing a false-flag provocation in the Kharkov region, complete with pre-positioned journalists – supposedly to shape a narrative blaming Moscow. These incidents are not isolated. They fit into a larger operational and political pattern: each time high-level talks are scheduled Kiev steps up attacks on Russia’s border regions. The results are the same: civilian deaths, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and an attempt to create a cloud over the diplomatic process.

The same happened in late May and early June 2025, just before the second round of Russia–Ukraine talks in Istanbul, when two bridges in Russian territory were blown up. The attacks killed seven civilians and injured over seventy more. In Moscow’s interpretation, the timing was too precise to be coincidence – it was about setting a tone of hostility, perhaps provoking Russia into walking away from the talks entirely. And yet, Moscow did not take the bait. Russian negotiators showed up in Istanbul as planned. For the Kremlin, this has become a point of principle: no matter the provocations, Russia will attend discussions that could bring an end to the conflict – on its own terms.

The upcoming Alaska summit on August 15, 2025, between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, is the latest such opportunity. The alleged Kharkov region provocation and the strikes on Belgorod and Rostov are seen in Moscow as deliberate background noise meant to derail the meeting or at least to sour its atmosphere. But just as in Istanbul, the Kremlin insists it will not be deterred. For Moscow, attending these talks is about more than optics. It underscores a long-held stance: Russia is prepared to end the conflict, but not at the price of what it views as its core national interests. Walking away now, after years of costly military and political investment, would make little sense. Instead, the aim is to secure a resolution that cements Russia’s gains and ends the war on Moscow’s terms – not by fighting “to the last Ukrainian,” but by ensuring that the outcome is final and strategically advantageous.

From the Kremlin’s perspective, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s motives are clear. Accepting a peace that involves territorial concessions would not only be a bitter political defeat – it could spell the end of his political career. More critically, it would remove the emergency powers he has repeatedly invoked since the start of the conflict to cancel elections and prolong his term in office. Those powers have also enabled controversial measures: forced conscriptions, suppression of opposition media, and an intensified crackdown on dissent. These steps have eroded his popularity inside Ukraine, making his hold on power dependent on the continuation of the wartime state of emergency. If the war ends, so does the legal shield of emergency rule – and with it, his immunity. Zelensky therefore has both political and personal incentives to keep the fighting going, even at significant cost to Ukraine’s population.

Read more …

“I’ve been a 100% unambiguous critic of everything Donald Trump did on January 6th. I believe he should have been charged criminally. I believe the pardons were a disgrace. But why does that mean he can’t do anything now to enforce the law…”

• Elie Honig Nuked Left’s Talking Points on Trump DC Crime Crackdown (Margolis)

CNN’s top legal analyst just shredded one of the Democrats’ favorite talking points about President Trump’s decision to federalize the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. Appearing on CNN NewsNight Wednesday evening, Elie Honig, who has been an outspoken critic of Trump, flatly rejected the left’s talking points that the move was illegitimate or purely political theater.“I’ve worked extensively with police. And I don’t have a problem tactically with what Donald Trump is doing here,” Honig told the panel. “It doesn’t have to be the most dangerous place on Earth. Something can be improving, but still really bad. If your house is on fire and then a third of the fire goes out, it’s less bad, but it could still be an emergency.” Honig didn’t sugarcoat his assessment of the nation’s capital.

“I work in D.C. It is dangerous there. You cannot deny that,” he said. “A common police tactic is to surge resources. I’ve been part — we call them ‘task forces’ — they’re applauded across the board, across the political board. I’ve done it in New Jersey. I’ve done it in New York. You take the FBI, you team them up with the Newark P.D., what have you, you make a visible presence.” Honig went even further, making clear that his past condemnation of Trump over January 6 doesn’t mean the president can’t act now to enforce the law. “I’ve been a 100% unambiguous critic of everything Donald Trump did on January 6th. I believe he should have been charged criminally. I believe the pardons were a disgrace. But why does that mean he can’t do anything now to enforce the law, to promote public safety?”

That stance drew pushback from Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), who accused Trump of hypocrisy and labeled the move “political theater.” “None of this is fundamentally address a crime problem in D.C.,” Torres claimed. Honig didn’t flinch. “Would you rather have national security out in D.C. where you work?” The debate intensified when Scott Jennings pointed out that the D.C. police union backed Trump’s move. “The police union came out on this action by the president and said, ‘We wholeheartedly support the president; we need the support.’ Are they right or wrong?” Jennings asked. Torres insisted federal law enforcement wasn’t the right tool for the job, claiming the FBI’s mission is limited to counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Honig immediately corrected him.

“That’s not true. I’ve heard that said a lot. The FBI does street operations. People say the FBI, they’re chasing terrorists — some are,” he said. “I worked with the FBI. The FBI does street reps, they do drug buys, they do gun buys. It’s part of what they do. It’s not a misuse of the FBI.” While CNN anchor Abby Phillip raised questions about federal agents conducting traffic stops and clearing homeless encampments, Honig circled back to a simple point: If D.C.’s leadership truly objected, they could act. “If they thought this was so illegal, unwarranted, inappropriate, why have they not challenged it? They’ve challenged it rhetorically, but they haven’t gone to the board on it.” In the end, Honig’s comments blew a hole in the narrative that Trump’s action was an abuse of power — and they came from someone who has never been shy about criticizing the president.

Read more …

Imagine that drip as head of the CIA. That’s what we narrowly escaped.

• How Hillary Planned to Reward Schiff for Undermining Trump (Margolis)

As PJ Media previously reported, then-congressman Schiff was the architect behind the deliberate leaking of classified information aimed at smearing Trump and pushing a narrative against him designed to ensure his prosecution. Back in 2017, a veteran career intelligence officer working for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee warned the FBI that Schiff had not only approved but actively orchestrated the leaking of sensitive classified intelligence. According to whistleblower testimony from 2023 interviews, Schiff convened a staff meeting where he explicitly declared that the group would leak damaging classified information about President Trump. His goal was to use this information to secure an indictment against Trump.

The whistleblower, who was close to Schiff and other intelligence figures on both sides of the aisle, described these actions as “unethical,” “illegal,” and “treasonous.” The implications don’t stop with Schiff. Investigative reporter Catherine Herridge has not only released FBI reports that reveal that Rep. Eric Swalwell, another Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was also a habitual leaker of classified information, even receiving warnings from the FBI to be more cautious. The reports also indicate that had Clinton won the 2016 election, she would likely have rewarded Schiff for his efforts by appointing him CIA director, a testament to their deep ties and shared political objectives.

(U) By way of background, circa October 2016, [redacted], a [redacted] Staff Member House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HESCT), was told by various HPSCI staff colleagues if Hillary Clinton were to win the election Representative Adam Schiff (D – California) would be offered the position of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – As such, opined Schiff had reasons to support Clinton beyond his political affiliation. At that time normal partisan politics continued at HPSCI but there was no significant problem with regards to leaking classified information.

(U) Things changed after the election. Schiff believed Russia hijacked the election and the United States was in the middle of a constitutional crisis. Classified information began leaking to the media. The Democratic minority leadership of HPSCI was aware of the leaks but was under the impression that leaking the information was one way to topple the administration and fix the constitutional crisis.

This nexus between Clinton, Schiff, and the intelligence apparatus turned the Russia investigation into a political weapon, not an impartial probe. The whistleblower’s account, backed by FBI interviews, exposes a political war that Democrats waged from inside government agencies, using classified intelligence as ammunition in concert with Hillary Clinton’s campaign. These revelations highlight the weaponization of political power against a presidential candidate and later a sitting president, with classified information twisted into a fabricated scandal that consumed the news and crippled Washington.

Schiff’s central role, which aligned with Clinton’s interests, marks a peak in corruption and political gamesmanship. The FBI, DOJ, and Congress have a rare chance to reveal the full scope of this abuse and begin restoring public trust. This isn’t just partisan hardball; it’s a calculated misuse of government authority to topple an administration. The Schiff-Clinton intelligence nexus may have been the engine of the Russiagate hoax, and full exposure is long overdue. Few episodes in modern politics have done more damage to the rule of law and public confidence, and the very institutions meant to protect them orchestrated it all. It’s time to confront that reality head-on.

Read more …

Bhattacharya appears to be the right man in the right place (NIH). But how did the US ever get a -looming- anti-biotics shortage?

• Trump Signs Executive Order To Fill Reserve With Critical Drugs (JTN)

President Trump has signed an executive order to fill the Strategic Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Reserve with critical drugs to ensure “a resilient domestic supply chain for essential medicines.” The executive order signed on Tuesday directs the Department of Health and Human Services assistant secretary for Preparedness and Response to create a list of about 26 critical drugs that are deemed “vital to national health and security, and ready the SAPIR repository to receive and maintain the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) used to make these critical drugs,” according to a White House fact sheet. Also, the order charges the official with getting a 6-month supply of the APIs for the critical drugs, “with a preference for obtaining domestically-manufactured APIs if possible, and placing them in the SAPIR.” Trump additionally told the official to make a proposal for a second SAPIR repository.

The executive order comes after National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya told Just the News, No Noise TV show last month that the U.S. has a shortage of some drugs, such as antibiotics. “So much of our manufacturing for drugs relies on the Chinese manufacturing, on Indian manufacturing,” Bhattacharya said. “And it leaves the United States in a very vulnerable place, where if you have a crisis, even when you don’t have a crisis, when there’s just normal demands for vital medical items, antibiotics, I already mentioned, normal saline. All of that is just normal demand. “We are in a shortage now of some of those things, because we do not have domestic manufacturing that can respond when there is an increase in demand, as there sometimes is,” he continued.

Read more …

“Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.”

• Treasury Secretary Bessent Calls For Trading Ban In Congress (JTN)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is calling for a single-stock trading ban in Congress. “I am going to start pushing for a single-stock trading ban, because it is the credibility of the House and the Senate, that you look at some of these eye-popping returns – whether it is Rep. Pelosi, Senator Wyden – every hedge fund would be jealous of them. And the American people deserve better than this,” Bessent told Bloomberg TV on Wednesday. Nancy Pelosi, of California, and Ron Wyden, are Democrats. Congressional Republicans including Georgia Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, has also come under scrutiny. She recently disclosed stock trades made just before President Trump announced a 90-day pause on tariffs, prompting accusations of potential insider trading.

Greene told the Associated Press that she does not manage her own portfolio and that her investments are handled by a financial adviser. She also said all trades are disclosed in compliance with federal transparency requirements. “People shouldn’t come to Washington to get rich, they should come to serve the American people, and it brings down trust in the system because I can tell you that if any private citizen traded this way, the [Securities and Exchange Commission] would be knocking on their door,” he continued. Pelosi has long been criticized for her husband’s highly successful trades, which she is required to report in financial disclosures. Pelosi spokesperson Ian Krager told The Hill news outlet in response to Bessent, “Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.”

Wyden’s stock portfolio had a 123.8 percent gain last year, according to data from the financial analysis platform Unusual Whales. The Oregon senator posted on X in response to Bessent, “Nobody working for Donald Trump has any business pretending to care about ethics or the stock trading ban I support. If Scott Bessent gave a damn about the public interest, why is he holding a massive farm that puts him in a position to gain from Trump’s trade deals with China?” “Bessent is fuming that I blew the whistle on the fact that he’s hiding a huge Epstein file at the Treasury Department. Thousands of pages worth of Epstein’s bank records with names. Until he releases it, he’s just running interference for Epstein’s pedophile ring,” Wyden added.

Pelosi supports a bill advanced by all Democrats and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last month that would prevent members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children from buying and trading stocks, in addition to future presidents and vice presidents. In the House, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., vowed to start a discharge petition to force a vote on another stock trade ban bill.

Read more …

This is good. Do read the whole thing. The boomers have taken all the good stuff. But now they’e getting old, and the next generations are taking over financial (slowly) and political (faster) power.

• The Boomer Mirage (Stylman)

One Chart. Three Generations. Total Extraction. I saw this chart making the rounds on Twitter this week, and it stopped me cold. While the specific figures combine data from multiple sources, the trend is undeniable: in 1950, over half of 30-year-olds were married homeowners. By 2025, some analysts project that number as low as 13%.

That’s not a societal transformation. It’s not an economic fluke. It’s the visible outcome of an invisible strategy—one that extracted everything it could from a three-generation arc and left only illusions in its place. They’ll tell you people just choose differently now—that marriage rates fell because of changing values. But people can’t choose what they can’t afford. When the economic foundation for family formation disappears, cultural changes follow inevitably. That chart doesn’t show us changing values or new priorities. It shows systemic breakdown, disguised for decades as freedom. It maps the slow evaporation of the social contract. For one generation, adulthood was a starting point. For the next, a struggle. For the latest, an abstraction—marketed endlessly but almost never attained.

What began as a rite of passage has become a paywalled simulation. The post–World War II boom was never sustainable. In hindsight, this was obvious. It relied on conditions that were always time-limited: cheap energy from newly tapped oil fields, industrial monopolies before globalization kicked in, dollar hegemony that exported inflation globally, and a demographic pyramid with more workers than retirees. It was a golden window, not a golden age. And when the window closed, the illusion had to be maintained—through leverage, narrative, and ever-increasing sacrifice from the generations that followed.

The math quietly stopped working. Boomers bought homes for two or three times their annual income during an era when interest rates would fall for the next four decades—turning their mortgages into wealth-building machines as rates dropped from 15% to near-zero. Today’s buyers face five to six times their income—or more in major cities—while rates can only go up from historic lows. Where Boomers rode a 40-year tailwind of falling borrowing costs that inflated their assets while deflated their debt, current generations face headwinds at every turn. The Federal Reserve data confirms this unprecedented decline, showing rates falling from over 18% in the early 1980s to near 2.6% by 2021.

Read more …

“They won’t speak up. They don’t stand for anything anymore..” [..] “All they stand for is whatever is against whatever President Trump stands for..”

• Sen. Kennedy: Democrats Need to ‘Buy Some Testicles’ on Amazon (Margolis)

If you don’t think Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) is a national treasure, you’re not paying attention. Kennedy has a rare gift for cutting through Washington’s polished, poll-tested nonsense with a plainspoken Southern wit that lands like a sledgehammer wrapped in velvet. Whether he’s grilling a bureaucrat in a Senate hearing or sparring with a cable news host, Kennedy delivers his critiques with the kind of folksy charm that leaves his targets stunned and his audience in stitches. On Wednesday night’s “Hannity,” Kennedy was in peak form, aiming at Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and the Democratic Party’s timid “mainstream wing” with a blistering, laugh-out-loud takedown that reminded viewers exactly why he’s one of the sharpest and funniest voices in American politics.

Kennedy unleashed his trademark blistering critique of the Democratic Party’s so-called “mainstream wing,” accusing it of being paralyzed by fear of its more radical members. “The mainstream wing of the party is scared to death of the loon wing,” Kennedy said. “They won’t speak up. And they don’t stand for anything anymore. All they stand for is whatever… is against whatever President Trump stands for.” He argued that this fear has led to Democrats adopting positions that Kennedy said are counterproductive, particularly regarding crime in the nation’s capital. “We find ourselves in the extraordinary position of mainstream Democrats have now come out firmly and passionately in favor of crime in Washington, D.C. Why? Because Trump is trying to do something about it,” he said.

When asked about Schumer and Jeffries, Kennedy did not hold back. “No, uh, they could, and I don’t mean any disrespect… I know Senator Schumer very well. So, I say this with respect. Chuck and Hakeem need to go to Amazon, buy some testicles… and stand up to the loon wing of their party,” he said, drawing laughter from the Fox News host Sean Hannity. Kennedy’s critique continued, targeting what he called the Democrats’ unwillingness to confront socialist elements within their own ranks. “Until they’re willing to do that, um, I haven’t heard Senator Schumer say anything bad about Mamdani. I mean, the guy’s a socialist. He’s a whack job,” Kennedy said. Hannity interjected, noting that party leaders are “afraid of the whack job,” to which Kennedy replied, “They’re scared to death in the party… The party is not going to get better until they do.”

https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1955971871872090320

The conversation briefly turned to Kennedy’s colorful metaphor, with Hannity joking, “I didn’t know that Amazon sold testicles.” Kennedy responded in kind, saying, “You can buy anything on Amazon, Sean… They’re very cheap.” The back-and-forth underscored Kennedy’s blunt, no-nonsense style and his willingness to use humor to make a political point. Kennedy also believes the Democrats’ hesitancy to confront their more radical members has real-world consequences. “They won’t speak up. They don’t stand for anything anymore,” he said, repeating his core critique. “All they stand for is whatever is against whatever President Trump stands for. That’s why we find ourselves… in the extraordinary position” he described earlier. By the end of the interview, Kennedy summed up his message with his usual bluntness. “The party is not going to get better until they do,” he said.

Read more …

“The deadline was August 7. The broadcaster reported, citing a source, that Hunter Biden did not comply with Melania Trump’s demand within the established deadline.”

• Melania Trump Threatens Hunter Biden With $1Bln Lawsuit for Defamation (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump’s wife Melania has threatened former President Joe Biden’s son Hunter with a $1 billion lawsuit for allegedly “false” and “defamatory” statements against her related to the case of financier Jeffrey Epstein, a letter from the first lady’s lawyer read. The document published on the Fox News website noted that on August 5, Hunter Biden released a video on YouTube titled “Hunter Biden Returns,” which contained a number of statements that the first lady claims are false. “Here are the false statements in the Video that are defamatory per se: a.‘Epstein introduced Melania to Trump. The connections are, like, so wide and deep.’ b. ‘Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania, that’s how Melania and the First Lady and the President met,” the letter said.

Melania’s lawyer demanded that Hunter “immediately issue a full and fair retraction of the video and any and all other false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about Mrs. Trump.” If the ex-president’s son does not comply with the demand, Melania intends to sue him for $1 billion in damages. The deadline was August 7. The broadcaster reported, citing a source, that Hunter Biden did not comply with Melania Trump’s demand within the established deadline.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Fauci
https://twitter.com/TRUMP_ARMY_/status/1955939204229423564

Bhakdi

disease

insects

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 16 2025

Jul 162025
 
 July 16, 2025  Posted by at 9:34 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  73 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Portrait de femme (Dora Maar) 1943

 

• Trump’s Ukraine Reversal Represents ‘Complete Betrayal Of America First’ (Sp.)
• Trump Believes Russia Will Win – Politico (RT)
• Trump Under ‘Improper Pressure’ From EU and NATO – Lavrov
• Ghislaine Maxwell Is ‘Ready’ to Testify (Margolis)
• Trump Asked Zelensky About Striking Moscow, Making Putin ‘Feel The Pain’ (NYP)
• Trump Tells Zelensky Not To Attack Moscow (RT)
• EU Welcomes Trump’s Ultimatum To Russia (RT)
• EU Tells US To ‘Share The Burden’ For Ukraine Weapons (RT)
• Slovak PM Fico Denounces Brussels’ ‘Imbecilic’ Russia Plan (RT)
• Tick Tock Co-Pilot John Solomon Says FBI Currently Investigating “Conspiracy” (CTH)
• The European Surprise—Why We Misread the Continent’s Shifts (ET)
• Bessent Says “Formal Process” To Find Successor To Jerome Powell Has Begun (ZH)
• Marc Andreessen: ‘Universities Declared War On 70% Of The Country’ (ZH)
• Trump Says He Spoke to Bongino Amid Reports of Infighting (ET)
• Media Runs Interference as Biden Autopen Scandal Explodes (Margolis)

 

 

 

 

Walsh

KIRK

vote
https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1944982103470248326

 

 

 

 

Ex-US Army staff officer David Pyne gets it.

• Trump’s Ukraine Reversal Represents ‘Complete Betrayal Of America First’ (Sp.)

Donald Trump is on the brink of tearing up his ‘no foreign wars, pro-peace’ pre-election pledge on Ukraine, with plans to deliver more weapons, and threats against Russia edging him closer toward inheriting “Biden’s war.” Sputnik asked a renowned US geopolitics and military affairs expert to break it down. The president claims that his plans to ramp up arms deliveries to Ukraine and threaten Russia with secondary tariffs are designed to help end the conflict, “when in fact these steps are serving to prolong and escalate the war unnecessarily with no end in sight,” ex-US Army staff officer David Pyne says. “Trump fails to understand that it is US military assistance to Ukrainian dictator Volodymyr Zelensky that is the chief obstacle to achieving a realistic and durable peace settlement, not an unwillingness on the part of Putin to compromise,” Pyne, deputy head of the EMP Task Force, told Sputnik.

Since the policy reversal “represents a complete betrayal of Trump’s America First conservative voting base,” who elected him in part based on his pledge to end the crisis, it threatens to derail his presidency, according to Pyne. “If Trump continues in this foolish course of pursuing war instead of peace, not only will it increase the risk of a future direct military confrontation with Russia, but it will likely serve to further fracture his America First conservative base, enabling the Democrats to seize control of Congress in the November 2026 midterm elections,” the observer predicts. Pyne’s recommendation? End all US weapons and offensive intelligence support to Ukraine, pressure Zelensky to resign and hold elections, and broadly, accept Russia’s peace terms, so that Trump can get back to his “overriding grand strategic vision” of a “geostrategic partnership with Russia.”

Read more …

“The president’s view is Russia is going to win; it’s a matter of how long it takes,” the White House official told the outlet..”

• Trump Believes Russia Will Win – Politico (RT)

US President Donald Trump believes that Russian victory in the Ukraine conflict is inevitable, Politico reported, citing a senior White House official. On Monday, Trump threatened to impose secondary US tariffs of up to 100% on Russia’s trading partners unless progress toward a peace agreement is made within 50 days. He also authorized new weapons deliveries to Ukraine, which are to be paid for by European NATO members. Moscow has warned that Trump’s declaration could be seen by Kiev as a signal to continue the war. According to Politico, Trump decided to up the pressure on Moscow out of frustration with continued Russian strikes on Ukraine. The source noted that the US president believes that Moscow can secure military victory against Kiev thanks to its “bigger economy” and “bigger military.”

“The president’s view is Russia is going to win; it’s a matter of how long it takes,” the White House official told the outlet, noting Moscow’s progress on the battlefield. In recent months, Russian forces have continued to gain ground, fully liberating the Lugansk People’s Republic, as well as the Kursk Region, which was invaded by Ukrainian forces last year. Russia has rejected Trump’s latest ultimatum, while condemning attempts to pressure it. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov asserted that this approach is “unacceptable” and demanded that Washington and NATO respect Russia’s interests and concerns.

Moscow has repeatedly stressed that it is open to conducting negotiations based on mutual respect with the aim of settling the Ukraine conflict diplomatically. However, Russian officials have also said they see no genuine effort on the part of Kiev or the West to pursue peace and repeatedly slammed calls by Western officials to inflict “strategic defeat” on Russia. Russia has emphasized that it remains determined to achieve the goals of its military operation in Ukraine and, while it would prefer to do so through diplomacy, it is prepared to use military means if necessary.

Read more …

“We are already dealing with an unprecedented number of sanctions, and I am certain we can handle more.” “..they are more likely to impact European economies than Russia’s.”

• Trump Under ‘Improper Pressure’ From EU and NATO – Lavrov

US President Donald Trump is facing “improper pressure” from the European Union and NATO leaders to adopt a hardline stance on the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday. On Monday, Trump announced future deliveries of advanced weapons systems to Ukraine, which the US president said would be funded by European NATO members. Trump also issued an ultimatum threatening Russia and its trading partners with new economic sanctions unless the Ukraine conflict is resolved within 50 days. ”Clearly, [Trump] is under enormous – improper, I would say – pressure by the European Union and current NATO leaders,” Lavrov said during a press conference following a ministerial meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Tianjin, China.

He added that the “regime” of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky continues to request weapons donations “at the mounting expense of Western taxpayers.” Lavrov noted that Russia has previously received multiple ultimatums involving deadlines and demands for concessions on what it considers its core strategic objectives in the Ukraine conflict. He downplayed the effectiveness of new sanctions, arguing they are more likely to impact European economies than Russia’s.

”Trump clearly explained that Europe will be paying for all of that,” Lavrov said. “European economists and political experts who are objective acknowledge that this sanctions war is damaging the nations who initiated it. We are already dealing with an unprecedented number of sanctions, and I am certain we can handle more.” The minister reaffirmed Moscow’s position that NATO instigated the crisis by threatening Russia’s national security through its meddling in Ukraine. The West has pursued a containment strategy against Russia for decades and ignored repeated warnings from Moscow, Lavrov added.

Read more …

If they can bury the files, they can do the same with her.

• Ghislaine Maxwell Is ‘Ready’ to Testify (Margolis)

Well, isn’t this just the plot twist America’s corrupt ruling class was hoping you’d ignore? Ghislaine Maxwell is suddenly ready to spill the beans before Congress about Jeffrey Epstein’s whole operation. But, here’s where the story gets weird. “Despite the rumors, Ghislaine was never offered any kind of plea deal. She would be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell her story,” a source told The Daily Mail. “No-one from the government has ever asked her to share what she knows. She remains the only person to be jailed in connection to Epstein and she would welcome the chance to tell the American public the truth.” So, the only person ever jailed for Epstein’s monstrous crimes, and the government can’t be bothered to ask, “Hey, who else was involved?” Give me a break. If you believe that’s an accident, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Maxwell argues she should have been protected from prosecution as part of a Non Prosecution Agreement made by Epstein – her former lover and boss – in 2007 when he agreed to plead guilty to two minor charges of prostitution in a ‘sweetheart deal’ which saw him spend little time behind bars. And now, controversy continues to rage over the Department of Justice’s statement that there is no Epstein ‘client list’ and the release of videos from inside New York’s Metropolitan Correctional Center which the DOJ says proves he committed suicide in 2019 while being held in jail on sex trafficking charges. Critics have pointed to the fact that there is a crucial minute missing from the jail house video that also does not show the door or, indeed, the inside of Epstein’s jail cell.

The scandal – and alleged ‘cover up’ – has prompted a rebellion amongst President Trump’s loyal MAGA base. Some even believe Attorney General Pam Bondi should be fired after promising to release all files relating to Epstein and his high-profile male friends only to apparently renege on that promise. What’s really at stake here isn’t just the sordid details of Epstein’s operation. It’s the principle that in America, no one is above the law. Or at least, that’s what we’re supposed to believe. But every time Congress shrugs off a chance to get real answers—every time the Deep State buries evidence, every time the media gaslights the public—it becomes clearer that there’s one set of rules for the elites and another for the rest of us.

If Ghislaine Maxwell is willing to testify, how Congress handles it will speak volumes. The Epstein scandal isn’t just another controversy—it’s a litmus test for whether truth still has a place in American politics. If our elected leaders choose to look the other way, they’ve forfeited any moral claim to the power they hold. The Biden administration was happy to bury it, hoping the story would fade. But Trump made it clear on the campaign trail: he wants the truth exposed, and so does the MAGA movement. The American people deserve real answers—no matter how damning they might be for the elites pulling the strings. If we let this story die, we’re telling the swamp that they can get away with anything. And that, more than any memo or media spin, is the real threat to our republic.

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1945218096949604858

Read more …

If you look at the ruble or Moscow’s stock exchange, it doesn’t look like the economy is ‘cracking’.

• Trump Asked Zelensky About Striking Moscow, Making Putin ‘Feel The Pain’ (NYP)

President Trump privately questioned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about whether Kyiv could blast Moscow and St Petersburg if needed to make Russians “feel the pain” and come to the negotiating table, according to a report. “Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? … Can you hit St Petersburg too?” Trump asked on a July 4 call with Zelensky, a day after the president had a disappointing phone call with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, the Financial Times reported, citing multiple sources. Zelensky, who has pressed Western powers for years to provide more long-range missiles, reportedly replied, “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.”

The White House insisted in a statement to The Post that the comments should not be taken out of context, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushing back on the Financial Times’ framing of the call, which suggested Trump encouraged Zelensky to step up strikes deep into Russian territory. “The Financial Times is notorious for taking words wildly out of context to get clicks because their paper is dying,” Leavitt told The Post. “President Trump was merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing. He’s working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war.” Trump’s reported query came after he spoke with Putin and was left convinced that the Kremlin wasn’t going to halt its war machine.

The reported question marks a significant turnaround from Trump’s explosive Feb. 28 Oval Office meeting with Zelensky, in which he raged that the Ukrainian leader was “gambling with World War III” and that “you don’t have the cards right now.” On Monday, Trump announced a deal with NATO for the US to step up its supply of weapons to Ukraine, including Patriot missile systems and what he called a “full complement” of firepower to the war-torn ally. The deal could also include offensive weapons, such as long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia, Axios reported Monday. This would be critical for Ukraine as it will enable Kyiv to attack Russian machinery and weapons that have been used to bombard its cities, rather than relying on defensive measures.

Ukraine had carried out a daring military strike deep in Russian territory last month, known as Operation Spiderweb, in which it snuck a fleet of suicide drones into Russia and destroyed about a dozen bombers. In addition to the plan to send weapons to Ukraine, Trump also gave Putin a 50-day ultimatum to achieve some sort of peace agreement or else face 100% secondary tariffs, meaning countries that do business with Moscow will face the stiff levies. That economic threat comes as Russia’s economy minister warned last month that his country is “on the brink of recession.” Over the past three years, Russia has tapped into its National Wealth Fund, printed money and worked to evade the crippling sanctions imposed against it over its bloody onslaught against neighboring Ukraine.

But there are signs that its economic resilience is beginning to crack as the US and Europe look to further tighten the screws and close off workarounds. Late last month, Putin publicly announced plans to cut Russia’s military budget for next year, but didn’t specify how much. Throughout his second term, Trump had aggressively sought to broker a peace deal between the two warring countries. In recent weeks, however, the US president vented that he felt Putin was tapping him along. “I speak to him [Putin] a lot about getting this thing done. And I always hang up and say, ‘Well, that was a nice phone call,’” Trump said of his calls with the Russian leader over the past six months. “And then missiles are launched into Kyiv or some other city. And I said, ‘Strange.’ And after that happens three or four times, you say the talk doesn’t mean anything.”

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1945071924792451473

Read more …

“Leavitt insisted that Trump was “merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing..”

How does that rhyme with sending more weapons, like long range missiles?

• Trump Tells Zelensky Not To Attack Moscow (RT)

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he told Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky not to target Moscow with military strikes. The statement comes in response to media speculation that he had encouraged Kiev to carry out long-range missile attacks deep into Russia. The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that Trump had privately asked Zelensky whether he could hit Moscow and St. Petersburg if Washington supplied long-range weapons. Zelensky reportedly replied that he could. Asked by reporters whether Zelensky ought to fire missiles at Russia’s capital, Trump replied “No, he shouldn’t target Moscow.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused the FT of twisting the president’s words, saying it is “notorious for taking words wildly out of context to get clicks because their paper is dying.”

Leavitt insisted that Trump was “merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing,” stressing that the president was “working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also weighed in on the report, noting that “as a rule, all of this usually turns out to be fake.” He added, however, that “sometimes there are indeed serious leaks, even in publications we once considered quite respectable.” The FT report followed on Trump’s ultimatum to Moscow, in which he threatened to impose “severe” secondary tariffs on Russia’s trade partners if no progress towards peace is made within 50 days. Trump also announced future deliveries of advanced weapons systems to Ukraine, which are to be funded by European NATO members.

Since taking office in January, Trump has maintained that he wants the neighboring countries to make peace and has had several phone calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin that were focused on settling the conflict s
Moscow says it remains open to negotiating with Kiev but has yet to receive a response on when new peace talks will take place. The two sides have held two rounds of direct negotiations in Istanbul so far this year, but no breakthroughs were achieved, other than agreements to carry out large-scale prisoner exchanges. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on Tuesday that EU and NATO leaders have put Trump under “improper pressure” to adopt a hardline stance on the conflict.

Read more …

Russia wants peace badly, but not on western terms.

• EU Welcomes Trump’s Ultimatum To Russia (RT)

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has welcomed US President Donald Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Russia’s trading partners unless a deal with Ukraine is reached within 50 days, calling it a “positive” step. Moscow, however, has warned that Trump’s declaration could be seen by Kiev as a signal to continue the war. Trump said on Monday that he was “very, very unhappy” with the protracted negotiation process, warning Moscow of “severe” secondary tariffs of up to 100% unless the sides move towards a settlement. “It is very positive that President Trump is taking a strong stance on Russia,” Kallas, known for her hawkish stance on Moscow, said at a press briefing. She suggested, however, that Trump’s deadline may not be enough to “pressure” Russia.

”50 days is a very long time… It is clear that we all need to put more pressure on Russia so that they would also want peace,” she stated, calling for Washington to continue supporting Kiev militarily.Russia has repeatedly denounced Western arms supplies to Ukraine, saying they prolong the conflict without changing its course. Moscow has also condemned sanctions as illegal under international law. Russia and Ukraine have held two rounds of direct talks in Istanbul over the past two months. Both sides agreed to major prisoner swaps and exchanged proposals on potential ways towards a settlement. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Moscow remains open to negotiations but has not received a response on the timing of the next round from Kiev.Peskov described Trump’s ultimatum as “quite serious,” but noted that Russia needs time to analyze it. He also warned that the shift in Washington’s tone could be seen in Kiev “not as a signal toward peace, but as a signal to continue the war.”

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1945164213019623661

Read more …

That took less than one day. Trump’s entire domestic sales pitch out the window.

• EU Tells US To ‘Share The Burden’ For Ukraine Weapons (RT)

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has welcomed US President Donald Trump’s promise to send more weapons to Kiev, but said he can’t describe it as American aid if European NATO states are fully bankrolling the initiative. Trump announced on Monday that he will allow other NATO members to buy American-made Patriot missile defense systems and other weapons for Ukraine – but indicated that US taxpayers will no longer finance Kiev’s war effort. “The United States will not be having any payment made. We’re not buying it, but we will manufacture it, and they’re going to be paying for it,” the US leader said during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, adding “this will be a business for us.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Kallas welcomed Trump’s announcement but noted that Brussels “would like to see the US share the burden.” “If we pay for these weapons – it’s our support, it’s European support,” Kallas explained when asked to clarify what she meant by sharing the burden. “We are doing as much as we can to help Ukraine, and therefore the call is that everybody would do the same. It’s, you know, if you promise to give the weapons but say that somebody else is going to pay – it’s not really given by you, is it?” Moscow has repeatedly denounced Western arms supplies to Ukraine, saying they only serve to prolong the bloodshed and escalate the conflict without altering its course.

Russia remains open to negotiations but has not received a response from Kiev on the timing of the next round. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on Tuesday that EU and NATO leaders have put Trump under “improper pressure” to adopt a hardline stance. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stressed that “any attempts to make demands, let alone issue ultimatums, are unacceptable.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also criticized Trump’s threat to impose “severe” secondary tariffs of up to 100% in 50 days, noting that such ultimatums are “perceived by the Ukrainian side not as a signal toward peace, but as a signal to continue the war.”

Read more …

“..Slovakia, but also Hungary, Austria, and reportedly Italy..”

“The [European] Commission’s proposal is, excuse my language, imbecilic. Demagogically, it is the result of a limitless obsession with Russia..”

• Slovak PM Fico Denounces Brussels’ ‘Imbecilic’ Russia Plan (RT)

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has slammed the EU’s plan to phase out Russian energy imports as “imbecilic,” warning that the move would undermine his country’s energy security, as well as the rest of the bloc. The RePowerEU plan envisages cutting all Russian oil and gas imports into the EU by 2027. The scheme has met with opposition not only from Slovakia, but also Hungary, Austria, and reportedly Italy.In a video posted on Facebook on Monday, Fico said the “battle for Slovakia’s energy security is nearing its end,” acknowledging that Bratislava cannot veto Brussels’ plan. He accused the EU leadership of deliberately presenting the proposal as trade legislation to pre-empt opposition. Unlike sanctions, the plan only requires a qualified majority to pass.

“The [European] Commission’s proposal is, excuse my language, imbecilic. Demagogically, it is the result of a limitless obsession with Russia,” the prime minister said. He added that phasing out Russian energy will “damage the Slovak economy and undermine the competitiveness of the entire EU.” Responding to a letter from Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala, who urged Fico to support the EU’s 18th sanctions package against Russia, the Slovak leader stated on Monday that he would not relent until “relevant stakeholders provide [Bratislava] with the necessary guarantees that after January 1, 2028, Slovakia will have sufficient gas supplies at reasonable prices.”

Slovakia blocked the sanctions package for the second time last Friday, demanding that its concerns over the separate RePowerEU plan be addressed first. While Russian gas has not been subject to a direct EU ban, most member states have voluntarily cut imports. However, several landlocked countries – including Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, and the Czech Republic – still rely on limited volumes through exemptions. Bratislava and Budapest also receive much of their oil from Russia. Russia has warned that targeting its energy exports will continue to cause energy prices to surge across the EU, weakening the bloc’s economy. Since 2022, growth across the EU has stagnated.

Read more …

Sundance is not buying.

“Who believes this nonsense? We are years beyond believing the FBI is structurally doing anything to return fire against the Obama administration; yet here is Fox News selling bulk hopium to their viewers. Ridiculous. All of it.”

• Tick Tock Co-Pilot John Solomon Says FBI Currently Investigating “Conspiracy” (CTH)

Sean Hannity and John Solomon have apparently ejected Sara Carter for “Tick Tock Term-2”, seemingly replacing her with James (‘sounds like Gopher from Winnie the Pooh‘) Comer. In the latest iteration of the tick-tock walls closing in, at least according to Solomon, the FBI is currently doing a “grand conspiracy” investigation of Barack Obama, James Comey, John Brennan and James Clapper. Solomon says below, “This is a criminal conspiracy. And by treating it as a conspiracy, you eliminate the five-year statutes on individual crimes. So if something happened in 2016, but it was part of an ongoing conspiracy that continued with Jack Smith raiding Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, it can be charged in the larger conspiracy. Even though, if you tried to charge it as an individual case, you wouldn’t get it.”

According to Solomon, even Lee Zeldin is a potential candidate to lead a special prosecution team against the former conspirators, and the evidence is so overwhelming … “a special prosecutor would have a jumpstart. This could be wrapped up in a couple of years.”… I can’t even begin to wrap my head around how ridiculous this claim by Hannity, Solomon and Representative ‘Gopher‘ Comer actually is. Who believes this nonsense? We are years beyond believing the FBI is structurally doing anything to return fire against the Obama administration; yet here is Fox News selling bulk hopium to their viewers. Ridiculous. All of it.

Read more …

“English-speaking audiences relying on European media’s English editions get an incomplete picture, skewed toward liberal narratives and missing the conservative currents driving political shifts..”

• The European Surprise—Why We Misread the Continent’s Shifts (ET)

Europe’s political landscape continues to defy expectations, leaving analysts and policymakers scrambling to explain outcomes that, in hindsight, seem foreseeable. From the UK’s Brexit vote to Giorgia Meloni’s rise in Italy, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) surge in Germany, Dutch farmers’ revolts, and Marine Le Pen’s ascent in France, each development triggers a chorus of shocked “No one saw this coming.” Yet millions of Europeans did. The persistent surprise may stem from a flawed lens—dominated by English-language media filters, historical overcorrections, and shrinking on-the-ground reporting—that distorts our understanding. As these shifts ripple globally, misreading Europe poses strategic risks we can no longer afford to ignore.

The pattern is unmistakable. Europe has been portrayed as a stable, liberal bastion—centrist coalitions driving climate action and European Union unity, embodying a progressive ideal. Yet reality diverges: The UK exited the EU in 2016, Meloni became Italy’s prime minister in 2022, Germany’s AfD polled second nationally in 2025, Dutch farmers blocked roads over nitrogen policies, and France’s center collapsed in 2024, elevating Le Pen. Each time, English-language coverage reacts with shock, missing signals visible to local populations. This disconnect begins with a critical media filter. English-language European outlets, such as state-funded France 24, Deutsche Welle, Politico Europe, and center-left publications like Le Monde, cater to an urban, university-educated, globally minded audience. These sources are mostly credible and professional but reflect a narrow slice of society, underrepresenting conservative and rural perspectives.

A key disparity amplifies this bias: While mainstream liberal media regularly publish English editions, conservative and right-wing outlets across Europe—such as Germany’s Junge Freiheit or Italy’s Il Giornale—rarely do. This choice stems from several factors: a lack of perceived demand in English-speaking markets, suspicion of hostile Anglo-American coverage, and a strategic focus on local bases. As a result, English-speaking audiences relying on European media’s English editions get an incomplete picture, skewed toward liberal narratives and missing the conservative currents driving political shifts. Country-specific examples reveal the depth of this gap. In Italy, Meloni’s 2022 victory, often labeled “neo-fascist” because of her party’s post-fascist roots, was misread by English outlets.

Yet her platform—lower taxes, stronger borders, and national pride—reflected frustration with unelected technocrats and Brussels’ fiscal rules. She formed a coalition with Matteo Salvini’s League and Forza Italia, securing a parliamentary majority with 44 percent of the vote, appealing to millions disillusioned by years of instability, not extremism. Her government’s three-year record (2022 to 2025) has focused on economic recovery. In Germany, AfD’s rise to more than 20 percent in state elections and a mayoral win in 2025 reflect discontent with soaring energy prices post-nuclear shutdown and immigration strains. Yet it’s framed as a dangerous anomaly, ignoring its roots in rural and eastern voter bases.

In the Netherlands, the government’s 2019 nitrogen reduction plan, mandating farm buyouts, sparked tractor blockades by farmers facing existential threats to generational livelihoods. The Farmer-Citizen Movement, formed in response, became the largest party in the Dutch Senate by 2023, a democratic revolt misread as a sideshow. In France, President Emmanuel Macron’s 2024 dissolution of the National Assembly followed his party’s European election defeat, paving the way for Le Pen’s National Rally. Her movement, drawing working-class and youth voters from disaffected leftist unions, has softened its rhetoric—shifting from anti-immigrant hardline to economic populism—normalizing her appeal amid the center’s collapse.

This blind spot is structural, rooted in postwar Europe’s “firewall” logic. After World War II, institutions like Germany’s Basic Law and France’s laïcité were designed to prevent fascism and nationalism, embedding a cultural consensus against these ideologies. The EU, as a moral project to dissolve rivalries, reinforced this stance. Over time, this overcorrection stigmatized moderate conservatism—national flags or religious appeals were red flags, dissent from EU norms labeled “anti-democratic.” Repressing these voices buried resentment, fueling unexpected populism. The UK grooming gang scandals illustrate a similar pattern: institutional real fear of fomenting racism delayed action on abuse, worsening the crisis. In Europe, suppressing feedback has similarly driven political surprises.

The Anglosphere’s media compounds this. Decades ago, outlets like The New York Times or CBS maintained lively European bureaus, offering nuance and real understanding of reality on the ground. Budget cuts and shifting priorities have shuttered many, replacing correspondents with wire services and freelancers. Walter Duranty’s downplaying of Joseph Stalin’s Holodomor, despite his Moscow base, shows proximity isn’t a cure-all, but its absence distorts coverage, even by the mere addition of intermediaries. Today’s reports—relying on embassy briefings, nongovernmental organization releases, the European media’s English language editions, or echo-chamber articles—many times lack critical context. For example, there was the framing of Dutch tractor protests as climate backlash rather than a livelihood crisis. For policymakers and investors, this distance misjudges risks, from policy legitimacy to market stability.

The stakes are high. Misreading Europe leads to ill-fated policies, regulatory backlash, and eroding trust in journalism, fueling polarization. Each “shock result” signals analytical failure with global repercussions—markets shift, alliances waver, and migration patterns change. The postwar consensus, while essential, has ossified into dogma, blinding elites to new threats. To see Europe clearly, we ought to think and act like historians. We stop waiting for “The Truth” to arrive in a statement and start building our own mosaic. This means reading across ideological spectra, using artificial intelligence to translate non-English conservative sources like Junge Freiheit (even if one vehemently disagrees with its editorial line), tracking polling trends, and listening beyond capitals.

This is not about endorsing right-wing or conservative parties over liberal and progressive ideologies; rather, it underscores that navigating with a flawed map—lacking the full true picture—hurts everyone’s performance. Understanding Europe’s diverse political currents, progressive gains and conservative surges alike, reduces the risk of costly surprises.

Read more …

He himself is a leading candidate.

• Bessent Says “Formal Process” To Find Successor To Jerome Powell Has Begun (ZH)

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed on Tuesday that a “formal process” is underway to find a potential successor to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. In an interview with Bloomberg Surveillance, Bessent remarked, “There are a lot of great candidates, and we’ll see how rapidly it progresses.” He also noted that it would be confusing for Powell to stay on at the Federal Reserve after his term as chair concludes. Since last month President Donald Trump has intensified his criticism of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, repeatedly accusing him of mismanaging monetary policy and calling for aggressive interest rate cuts. Trump has argued that Powell is acting too slowly to respond to economic conditions and said, “Maybe I should go to the Fed… Am I allowed to appoint myself at the Fed? I’d do a much better job than these people.”

He has labeled Powell with a series of insults, calling him “stupid,” “too late,” “a numbskull,” and demanding the Fed slash rates by a full percentage point to stimulate the economy. Trump’s attacks continued into July, growing even sharper. On July 8, he declared that Powell “should resign immediately.” A few days later, he criticized Powell over cost overruns tied to a $2.5 billion renovation project at the Federal Reserve, referring to him as a “knucklehead” and “stupid guy.” Last week, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought also criticized Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for a renovation project he called “too lavish,” referring to it as “Versailles on the National Mall.”

On CNBC, Vought cited “fundamental mismanagement” at the Fed. Meanwhile, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, a potential successor to Powell, added, “If there is cause to fire Powell, Trump has the authority to do so.” The criticism appeared coordinated, with other figures like Fed candidate Kevin Warsh and Vice President J.D. Vance joining in. Trump also reiterated his demand for rates to be cut to around 1%. Members of his team suggested they might review the renovation project as a possible justification to remove Powell “for cause.”

Read more …

It’s not just Harvard.

“..Stanford University and MIT are operating as “mainly political lobbying operations fighting American innovation.”

• Marc Andreessen: ‘Universities Declared War On 70% Of The Country’ (ZH)

Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen warned that universities engaging in discriminatory practices against students and faculty will face significant consequences, according to leaked screenshots obtained by the Washington Post. In the private group chat with AI scientists and Trump administration officials, Andreessen stated that universities “declared war on 70% of the country and now they’re going to pay the price.” He criticized DEI and immigration policies, describing them as “two forms of discrimination” that are “politically lethal.”

Andreessen further claimed that Stanford University and MIT are operating as “mainly political lobbying operations fighting American innovation.” The billionaire tech investor also addressed Stanford’s decision to remove his wife, Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, as chair of its Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, noting it was done “without a second thought, a decision that will cost them something like $5 billion in future donations.”

This isn’t the first time Andreessen has called out what he perceives as a broken university system. In a recent interview with billionaire venture capitalist and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, Andreessen raised concerns about access to elite education. “If you’re the parents of a smart kid where I grew up [rural Wisconsin] and you think you’re going to get them into a top university in this country, you’re fooling yourself,” Andreessen said. “What level of untapped talent exists in this country that a combination of DEI and immigration have basically cut out of the loop for the last 50 years?”

Andreessen argued that the intersection of DEI policies and high-skilled immigration has “warped” perceptions of who gets access to elite education. “Nobody wants to talk about, but I’ve started to talk about the intersection of DEI and immigration that has really warped our perceptions on high-skilled immigration over the last 50 years,” he said.

Andreessen also pointed to the sharp rise in foreign enrollment at top universities, noting, “You look at the foreign enrollment rates at the top universities, which went from 2 or 3 or 4 percent 50 years ago or whatever to 27% or 30% or 50%.” “There’s been this massive transformation of who gets admitted through affirmative action, as we now know it, DEI,” the tech billionaire continued. “This goes straight to the political divide in the country. If you’re parents of a kid where I grew up [rural Wisconsin] and you’ve got a smart kid and you think you’re going to get them into, you know, a top university in this country, like you’re fooling yourself.”

Andreessen drove the point home, adding, “There is this really fundamental question which is, what level of untapped talent exists in this country that a combination of DEI and immigration have basically cut out of the loop for the last 50 years? And how long can we have this story to everybody in the Midwest and in the South that says, sorry, because of historical oppression, your kids are shit out of luck.” Andreessen made headlines last year when he and his business partner, Ben Horowitz, endorsed President Donald Trump’s third campaign for the White House.

Read more …

“Trump suggested that nothing in the Epstein files “could have hurt the MAGA Movement.”

• Trump Says He Spoke to Bongino Amid Reports of Infighting (ET)

President Donald Trump said he spoke to FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino on July 13, indicating that the two remain close despite reported friction over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein documents. “I spoke to him today. Dan Bongino is a very good guy. I’ve known him a long time,” Trump told reporters outside Air Force 1. “He’s in good shape.” The comments come after Axios reported on July 11 that Bongino—previously a conservative commentator who had long pressed for answers about Epstein’s 2019 death and operation—skipped work on Friday due to disagreements with Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling of the matter. Laura Loomer, a political commentator close to the president, also reported on Bongino’s absence from work last week, similarly referencing disagreements between Bongino and Bondi.

Trump on July 12 told his supporters not to continue looking into the circumstances surrounding the billionaire’s death. “What’s going on with my ‘boys’ and, in some cases, ‘gals?’” Trump said in a July 12 post on social media platform Truth Social. “They’re all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We’re on one Team, MAGA, and I don’t like what’s happening. “We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and ‘selfish people’ are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein.” He added, “One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it’s the ‘HOTTEST’ Country anywhere in the World. Let’s keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.”

Epstein’s case has been intensely scrutinized online for years following his 2019 death in federal custody while awaiting prosecution on charges of engaging in a multiyear conspiracy to sex traffic minors. The billionaire was reported to have hung himself in his cell, but given his connections with many high-ranking officials and celebrities, many have speculated whether Epstein was murdered. The nature of Epstein’s operation, involving sexual exploitation of over one thousand victims, many of whom were minors, has also been scrutinized. At a July 8 Cabinet meeting, a reporter asked Bondi to address a claim that Epstein had been some form of intelligence community asset. “I have no knowledge about that,” she said. “We can get back to you on that.”

During that Cabinet meeting, Bondi also said a missing minute from a jail surveillance tape on the night Epstein died was a normal circumstance due to a routine technical artifact in the camera system, as the video is reset every night at 12 a.m. Trump suggested that nothing in the Epstein files “could have hurt the MAGA Movement.” On July 7, the Department of Justice and FBI released a memo stating that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide and had no “client list,” and that the agencies would not release any further material related to the Epstein case. “As part of our commitment to transparency, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted an exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein,” the agencies stated in the memo.

The review found that Epstein committed suicide in his cell as he was awaiting trial in August 2019. This concurs with an autopsy conducted at the time. “The conclusion that Epstein died by suicide is further supported by video footage from the common area of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) where Epstein was housed at the time of his death,” the memo reads. The review found that Epstein did not keep a list of clients as part of his sex trafficking activities. Additionally, there is no evidence that Epstein blackmailed individuals, according to the memo. Nonetheless, according to the review, Epstein “harmed over one thousand victims” as “each suffered unique trauma.”

Read more …

This screams Supreme Court. Expedited.

• Media Runs Interference as Biden Autopen Scandal Explodes (Margolis)

The legacy media never misses a beat when it comes to parroting Democratic talking points, screaming “threat to democracy” and “constitutional crisis” anytime Donald Trump sneezes in the wrong direction. But when the left tramples on constitutional norms? Crickets — or worse, full-blown excuses. Case in point: Joe Biden’s autopen scandal. The same press corps that waited until after he left office to admit what we all saw with our own eyes — that Biden was mentally unfit — is now running interference again. This time, they’re pretending the autopen scandal is much ado about nothing. This week, the New York Times published an exposé that revealed that, despite claims to the contrary, Joe Biden didn’t individually approve every pardon or act of clemency done in his name. It was a damning report that raises even major questions about what was signed via autopen without his knowledge.

So what did ABC News do? They tweeted out that Joe Biden personally made every clemency and pardon decision during the last weeks of his failed presidency, including the ones handled by autopen. To call that misleading is an understatement. The New York Times admits, and so do Biden’s own aides, that many of those pardons were processed in “large batches.” The decisions? Not made after careful review of individuals, but based on broad, pre-approved categories. Biden didn’t know the names. He didn’t scrutinize the cases. He rubber-stamped entire classes of people for a free pass, while the staffers and bureaucrats filled in the blanks. Despite pushing the Biden talking point on social media, the actual article ABC linked to directly refutes Biden’s own statement.

“Former President Joe Biden, in an interview with the New York Times published on Sunday, said that he personally made every clemency and pardon decision during the last few weeks of his presidency — including those made with an autopen. However, he and aides told the Times that some decisions for large batches of pardons were based on broad categories that various people fell into, not based on reviewing individuals on a case-by-case basis. Biden said he approved the categories and standards for choosing who to pardon. “I made every single one of those. And — including the categories, when we set this up to begin with,” Biden said of the clemency and pardon decisions.”

This is the same media that now pretends to have had a “come to Jesus” moment over the cover-up of Biden’s cognitive decline — while still actively covering it up. They’re pushing Biden’s denials as truth right in their headlines, hoping the public fixates on the spin instead of the facts. But those facts are damning: Biden and his own aides have admitted he didn’t personally make every decision. The media’s job used to be holding power accountable. Now, they’re still running PR for Joe Biden.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

lungs
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1945255216078843920

https://twitter.com/ChildrensHD/status/1945226072057905629

Xishi

Monarch

Chico
https://twitter.com/Igottafigh64510/status/1945098230611513374

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 8 2025

Jul 082025
 
 July 8, 2025  Posted by at 9:19 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  61 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Coffee maker 1943

 

• Tariff Time Again: Trump Sends Trade Letters Ahead Of Deadline (ZH)
• Bessent Explains MAGA Policy Intent on Growing US Economy (CTH)
• Trump Promises To Resume Delivering Weapons To Ukraine (RT)
• Ukraine Plagued By ‘Palace Politics’ And Purges – The Economist (RT)
• Ukrainian MP Blames Corruption For Troops Fleeing Army (RT)
• Tipping Point (Helmer)
• Steve Bannon Compares Trump To Lincoln And Washington (RT)
• Cage Match (James Howard Kunstler)
• Ex-CIA Chief Brennan Could Face Russiagate ‘Perjury’ Probe (RT)
• West Using ‘Russia Threat’ To Distract From Own Failures – Lavrov (RT)
• Brazil’s Lula Accuses NATO of Fueling Arms Race (RT)
• This NATO Fanboy Just Became Germany’s Army Chief (Amar)
• Lavrov Explains How NATO Threatens Russia (RT)
• EU Fears Losing US Military Software Support – NYT (RT)

 

 

Epstein

Bondi

 

 

 

 

Deadline has been pushed forward to Aug. 1. Start negotiating now!

• Tariff Time Again: Trump Sends Trade Letters Ahead Of Deadline (ZH)

The first two trade letters were sent to South Korea and Japan, imposing a 25% tariff on all goods, effective August 1. Here are the key points from the letter addressed to South Korea that was posted on President Trump’s Truth Social page:
• The U.S. views the trade relationship as unbalanced and non-reciprocal.
• The 25% tariff applies to all Korean goods, unless they are produced within the U.S.
• The tariff is separate from sectoral tariffs and will be increased if Korea retaliates with its own tariff hikes.
• The U.S. encourages Korea to open its markets and remove trade barriers—offering a possible tariff reduction if this happens.
• The trade deficit is framed as a national security threat.


14 countries were sent such letters: Malaysia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Laos, Myanmar, South Korea, Japan, Tunisia, Thailand, Cambodia, Serbia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

————–—
Trade tensions are once again front and center for investors as President Trump’s tariff deadline looms. On Sunday night, the president announced that the U.S. will begin sending tariff letters to major trading partners, warning of levies on countries that have yet to strike a deal. The president expects letters to be sent to 12 countries. Trump wrote on Truth Social: “I am pleased to announce that the UNITED STATES TARIFF Letters, and/or Deals, with various Countries from around the World, will be delivered starting 12:00 P.M. (Eastern), Monday, July 7. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” DONALD J. TRUMP, President of The United States of America.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said President Trump will begin sending letters to U.S. trading partners, warning that if no agreement is reached, tariff rates will revert to April 2nd levels—set to take effect on August 1. Bessent noted that several major deals are nearing completion and that “big announcements” could be made this week. He added that around 100 smaller countries will be assigned a default tariff rate, many of which never engaged in negotiations with the Trump administration. Adding to the uncertainty, Trump said an additional 10% tariff will be imposed on any nation aligning with BRICS, the bloc of emerging market economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) seen as increasingly hostile to U.S. interests.

Trump wrote on Truth Social: “Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” The 10-member bloc of emerging-market nations has increasingly positioned itself as a geopolitical and economic contender to the US-led global economic order, which is seen as fracturing as the world stumbles into a dangerous bipolar state. BRICS seeks to reduce the dominance of Western institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and the U.S. dollar system. Trump has previously threatened countries that back a new reserve currency… “The idea that the BRICS Countries are trying to move away from the Dollar, while we stand by and watch, is OVER,” Trump wrote on X in late 2024.

Goldman analyst Nelson Armbrust commented on Trump’s tariff posts: “Trade tensions are back in view as the tariff deadline approaches, with Trump pledging to start issuing unilateral rates to dozens of countries in the coming days. Stocks retreated at the start of a potentially volatile week as U.S. trading partners rushed to finalize trade deals with the Trump administration ahead of a July 9 tariff deadline. U.S. officials earlier signaled August 1 as the date for higher levies to kick in. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated some countries may be offered a three-week extension to negotiate. On a side note, over the weekend BRICS leaders, including China and India, condemned U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran and called for a “just and lasting” resolution to conflicts across the Middle East. President Donald Trump threatened to impose an additional 10% tariff on any country aligning with “the Anti-American policies of BRICS”. Metals fell, the yuan weakened and the dollar rose 0.4%.” The inflection point appears to be the 2030s…

The broader message is clear: the Trump administration is drawing a very hard line—it will not allow BRICS to dismantle the dollar-based global order. This is shaping up to be a fight for economic and geopolitical survival, as the White House moves to ensure the American experiment endures the challenges of a bipolar world in the 2030s.

Read more …

“Big picture: Trump, Lutnick and Greer are now transmitting 1. Baseline tariffs (10-20%), 2. Reciprocity tariffs (trade imbalance) and 3. Section 232 tariffs (ex. Steel and Aluminum). Countries are notified and their tariff rate begins on August 1st.”

• Bessent Explains MAGA Policy Intent on Growing US Economy (CTH)

Appearing on CNBC to explain the big picture economics, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlines how debt and deficit hawks are seemingly blind to the need for GDP growth to deal with federal spending. From the outset of President Trump’s MAGAnomic policies in his T-1 and T-2 platform, growing the U.S. economy, expanding the size of the GDP is a key facet to dealing with debt and deficits. President Trump has always promoted economic policy that expands the size of the pie rather than focus on making smaller portions of each spending slice. Secretary Bessent also explains the current status of the tariff’s as delivered by the Trump administration. The next few days are exceptionally busy with incoming requests to renegotiate trade terms, and avoid countervailing duties.

Read more …

We can’t admit defeat. We’d much rather prolong a losing battle and sacrifice thousands more young people.

• Trump Promises To Resume Delivering Weapons To Ukraine (RT)

The United States will continue supplying weapons to Ukraine, President Donald Trump said on Monday, a week after the Pentagon halted some deliveries. “We’re going to send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They’re getting hit very hard now,” Trump told reporters during a dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “Defensive weapons, primarily, but they’re getting hit very, very hard. So many people are dying in that mess,” he said, without elaborating. Shortly after Trump’s remarks, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell confirmed that the US will send “additional defensive weapons to Ukraine.”

He added that the review of military shipments worldwide “remains in effect and is integral to our America First defense priorities.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a pause in deliveries last week, citing concerns about dwindling US stockpiles. “This decision was made to put America’s interests first following a DOD review of our nation’s military support and assistance to other countries across the globe,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told the media at the time. Parnell said the agency was reviewing all munitions shipments, not just those to Ukraine. “We can’t give weapons to everybody all around the world,” he said last Wednesday.

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry responded by summoning the US deputy chief of mission in Kiev, John Ginkel, and stating that “any delay or slowing down in supporting Ukraine’s defense capabilities would only encourage the aggressor.” Trump, breaking from his predecessor Joe Biden, has resumed direct talks with Russia and is seeking to broker a ceasefire between Moscow and Kiev. Russia has said that foreign weapons will not stop it from achieving victory. Last month, President Vladimir Putin reiterated that Moscow considers Western states supplying arms to Ukraine as “de facto direct participants in the conflict.”

Read more …

“Ukraine’s leadership is increasingly mired in “palace politics,” bitter infighting, and purges that threaten to fracture the country from within..”

• Ukraine Plagued By ‘Palace Politics’ And Purges – The Economist (RT)

Ukraine’s leadership is increasingly mired in “palace politics,” bitter infighting, and purges that threaten to fracture the country from within, The Economist reported on Sunday, citing multiple sources. Much of the turmoil is reportedly linked to Andrey Yermak, the powerful head of Vladimir Zelensky’s office, who is seen as actively sidelining other key figures close to the Ukrainian leader. While Russia continues to push back Ukrainian forces along the front line, the deepening political chaos in Kiev could spell even greater danger for Ukraine, the outlet stated. According to The Economist, the internal rift was illustrated by three developments last month: reports of an impending cabinet reshuffle with Yulia Sviridenko tipped as the next prime minister, yet another failed attempt to remove Ukraine’s spy chief, Kirill Budanov, and most notably, the corruption charges against Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov.

Chernyshov, previously known for his efforts to repatriate Ukrainians from the West, was accused of fraud tied to a housing project he approved while serving as urban development minister. The charges emerged while he was on official business in Europe, leading to what The Economist called the “absurd image” of Ukraine’s minister for repatriating citizens contemplating his own self-exile. Three officials told the magazine that while there was no evidence Yermak ordered the probe, he allowed the case to advance while freezing others, effectively neutralizing Chernyshov. The outlet’s sources claimed that Chernyshov’s true “offense” was trying to position himself as an alternative conduit for relations with Washington, potentially undermining Yermak. Chernyshov’s fall from grace also reportedly paved the way for Sviridenko, described as Yermak’s protégé, to rise further.

According to the outlet, Yermak has also on numerous occasions tried to oust Budanov. Sources close to Yermak labeled Budanov an unstable “revolutionary” intent on building his own political machine, while insiders in the intelligence service portrayed him as one of the few willing to confront Ukraine’s leadership with hard truths. However, Budanov has managed to survive through a mix of pressure tactics and political maneuvering, The Economist reported, adding that repeated White House warnings not to fire him also played a major role. While The Economist described Yermak as “domestically… stronger than ever,” an earlier report by Politico suggested that the US has been “frustrated” with the official. American officials interviewed by the magazine described Yermak as abrasive, poorly informed about US politics, and prone to lecturing – with some fearing he failed to accurately convey American positions to Kiev.

Read more …

“..accused Ukrainian commanders of exploiting soldiers by falsely registering them as serving on the front lines in order to claim additional payments, which the officers then seize..”

• Ukrainian MP Blames Corruption For Troops Fleeing Army (RT)

Widespread corruption and extortion of combat pay by military commanders are driving Ukrainian soldiers to abandon their units, Ukrainian MP Anna Skorokhod has claimed. In a video posted last week on her YouTube channel, Skorokhod accused Ukrainian commanders of exploiting soldiers by falsely registering them as serving on the front lines in order to claim additional payments, which the officers then seize. According to the MP, the commanders also often use the soldiers to “build houses or renovate new apartments” while making sure they receive combat pay, which is then surrendered to their superiors. “Or the soldiers are simply being extorted, because they supposedly get 100,000 hryvnia [$2,400], but there is no command, so they are forced to give up money.”

Skorokhod said the soldiers have few ways to address these grievances, resulting in recurring AWOLs. “Because when there’s nowhere to turn, no one listens or wants to listen, people simply gather in platoons, in groups, and leave because they will not tolerate this.” Last month, Ukrainian journalist Vladimir Boyko reported that there have been more than 213,000 registered cases of unauthorized abandonment of military units in Ukraine. He noted that these figures only account for cases where criminal proceedings have been initiated, suggesting the actual numbers may be higher.

Meanwhile, there have been concerns in Kiev that the cash-strapped country, which is to a significant extent dependent on Western economic aid, could struggle to compensate its military. In April, Ekonomicheskaya Pravda reported that funds initially allocated for military salaries in the latter part of 2025 were redirected to purchase drones, ammunition, and other weaponry. In May, the first deputy chairman of the parliamentary finance committee, Yaroslav Zheleznyak, suggested that Ukraine faced a 400 billion hryvnia ($9.6 billion) shortfall in defense spending, which he said requires budget revisions. In addition to recurring AWOLs, Ukraine has been struggling with its forced mobilization campaign, which often leads to violent clashes between reluctant recruits and draft officers.

Read more …

“The Russian calculus recognizes the tipping point [for US arms supplies to the Ukraine]. Until then the General Staff will grind away methodically, slowly. Then when the Western supplies run low, we will hit fast and hard.”

• Tipping Point (Helmer)

President Donald Trump thought he had gotten the deal terms and the cover story right, and also the prize for himself (the Nobel Peace Prize ). The deal was that under cover of an authorized leak to the press from Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eldridge Colby, that the US was running out of ammunition for Israel’s war with Iran, for the Ukraine war with Russia, and for US military stocks at their DEFCON levels, Trump would pause ammunition deliveries to the regime in Kiev, and then persuade President Vladimir Putin to agree to an immediate ceasefire in exchange. That’s the ceasefire which, since February, Trump has been asking Putin to announce at a summit meeting between the two of them.

That’s also the fourth ceasefire in the row which Trump has been counting as his personal achievements – between Pakistan and India on May 10; between Iran and Israel on June 23; and between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda on June 27. Only the scheme has failed. A Moscow source in a position to know explains: “The Russian calculus recognizes the tipping point [for US arms supplies to the Ukraine]. Until then the General Staff will grind away methodically, slowly. Then when the Western supplies run low, we will hit fast and hard. If you total the June attacks, the picture emerges clearly that Putin has chosen the Oreshnik option – without firing it yet — over compromising on Trump’s terms. The outskirts of Kiev are burning like never before.”

There are American exceptionalists who insist they thought of this before — in 1943, in fact, when Walter Lippmann spelled out what has come to be called (by Ivy League professors) the “Lippmann Gap”. This is no more nor less than the ancient maxim — don’t bite off more than you can chew. But in Lippmann’s verbulation: “Foreign policy consists in bringing into balance, with a comfortable surplus of power in reserve, the nation’s commitments and the nation’s power. I mean by a foreign commitment an obligation, outside the continental limits of the United States, which may in the last analysis have to be met by waging war. I mean by power the force which is necessary to prevent such a war or to win it if it cannot be prevented.

“In the term necessary power I include the military force which can be mobilized effectively within the domestic territory of the United States and also the reinforcements which can be obtained from dependable allies.” From the Russian point of view, the first two of Trump’s ceasefires have been clumsily concealed rescues for Pakistan and Israel; the Congo-Rwanda terms remain undecided; and the “necessary power” to reverse the defeat of the US, its “dependable allies”, and its proxies in the Ukraine has already been defeated. It won’t be Putin, however, to announce publicly that Trump has no “comfortable power in reserve”.

That, however, was Putin’s private message to Trump in their telephone call on July 3. “Russia would strive to achieve its goals,” was the way Putin allowed his spokesman to disclose: “namely the elimination of the well-known root causes that led to the current state of affairs, the bitter confrontation that we are seeing now. Russia will not back down from these goals.” This is the reason Trump later acknowledged: “[I] didn’t make any progress with him today at all.” It’s also the reason Trump beat a retreat from failure. “I’m very disappointed. Well, it’s not, I just think, I don’t think he’s [Putin] looking to stop. And that’s too bad. This, this fight, this isn’t me. This is Biden’s war.”

Read more …

“Trump’s not leaving,” Bannon said. “He’s going to be in your head for a long time.”

• Steve Bannon Compares Trump To Lincoln And Washington (RT)

US President Donald Trump is reshaping America and will remain a dominant force well beyond his second term, former adviser Steve Bannon has said in an interview with the Financial Times. He suggested that Trump’s role in history is comparable to that of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. In the interview published on Friday, Bannon predicted that Trump will not only run for a third term in 2028, but will win. He did not explain how it would be legally possible, given that the Constitution limits presidents to two terms, but insisted that Trump is a “world-historic” leader. “Trump’s not leaving,” Bannon said. “He’s going to be in your head for a long time.” He described Trump as the third transformational leader in US history after Washington, who founded the republic, and Lincoln, who “saved it.” Trump, he argued, is now giving the country its “rebirth.”

Bannon, who served as the president’s chief strategist during the early part of his first term, has continued to champion Trump’s political legacy in his podcast and public appearances. His remarks to the Financial Times come amid growing speculation over Trump’s intentions for 2028. Though a third presidential term is barred under the 22nd Amendment, Trump’s campaign store has recently begun selling ‘TRUMP 2028’ and ‘Rewrite the Rules’ merchandise. The items have fueled rumors about a possible attempt to extend his term. Trump has dismissed the idea, saying he will not seek reelection again. “I think we’re going to have four years and I think four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular,” he said. While acknowledging that “many people” have urged him to run again, he said he would prefer to hand power over to “a great Republican.”

Trump has not formally endorsed a successor, but has mentioned Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio among a broader pool of potential candidates. Despite Trump’s public remarks, his administration continues to face strong resistance and repeated impeachment attempts from Democratic lawmakers. Last month, his mass deportation directive triggered unrest in several Democratic-led cities, including Los Angeles, where National Guard and Marine units were deployed. California officials have challenged the legality of the military response, calling it unconstitutional. Amid the political turmoil, a recent YouGov poll found that 40% of Americans believe a civil war is somewhat or very likely within the next decade. The survey also revealed sharp partisan and racial divides in expectations about a potential conflict.

Read more …

“. . . [W}e are closing in on more disclosures and fixing past wrongs to personnel. We’re making sure this is done correctly. But it’s absolutely getting done.”
Dan Bongino, Deputy Director, FBI

• Cage Match (James Howard Kunstler)

Who knows what to believe these days? Well, what would you expect after years, even decades, of anti-reality operations by everyone from the CIA to The New York Times to Harvard U. Is it any wonder that reality-optionality is making the people both apathetic and insane? We are told now by the FBI that there is no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein ran a blackmail operation against the politicos of Western Civ, or that a “client list” existed, or that JE was murdered in his jail cell. It well might be true that there is no evidence, strictly speaking. Messrs. Patel and Bongino, coming into office rather late in the Epstein game, were apparently left with big bag of nuthin. What else can they truthfully report? So, they had to put it out there, knowing a whole lot of people would be miffed. “We’ve got nuthin, sorry.”

Were they chagrined to do that? Evidently so. Of course, this Epstein business has been going on for years and years and it is certainly possible that the most damning evidence has been destroyed by interested parties. Personally, I find it implausible that absolutely nothing ever leaked, no video of, say, Tony Blair or Bill Clinton violating a child, if it ever happened. Everything else in our world leaks, eventually. And there were supposedly how many cameras around the Epstein properties, and how many thousands of hours of video recordings? There is more video of Bigfoot than of compromised Epstein bigshots. Just sayin’. AG Pam Bondi, the FBIs boss, also has some ‘splainin’ to do. In February, she claimed to have the Epstein client list “sitting on my desk right now to review,” and hinted it would be released shortly.

That material, when released, turned out to be the old dog-eared flight logs that have been circulating through every news outlet for years. Did she not know the difference between an alleged “client list” and the old flight logs? Let’s face it: seems kind of dumb. . . seems like the AG got played. . . and now the mob on “X” is having sport with her. Among the miffed, apparently, is Elon Musk. At the height of his feud with Mr. Trump, on June 5, Elon put out a message on his “X” platform saying, “@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!”. This intemperate utterance naturally prompts you to wonder: how (or what) might Elon know about any supposed Epstein evidence? At this point, the FBI might send somebody to inquire.

Did Elon, who has more money than even Scrooge McDuck, somehow manage to buy up all those alleged blackmail tapes? Does he otherwise know where they might have disappeared to? Has he ever seen anything? Anyway, he didn’t produce any actual evidence. Is Elon losing it, a little bit. His grip, that is. Mr. Trump thinks so. He declared over the weekend that Elon has “gone off the rails” . . . has become “a train wreck.” Well, what you can see in this very public, very regrettable cage-match between two giant public personalities is that Elon has lost his cool and the president has not. For one thing, Elon is apparently incensed over the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) just signed into law because it ends the electric vehicle mandate left over from the “Joe Biden” regime, as well as the whopping $7,500 federal tax credit for new electric cars — loss of which which is apt to break Tesla’s business model.

The bill also calls for sunsetting subsidies for battery production by 2028, meaning Tesla’s Powerwall business is likewise affected. Mr. Trump took pains to explain that he’d informed Elon from the get-go (and repeatedly) that all those subsidies were done for when he got elected. Elon was visibly perturbed over the process that produced the OBBB, the proverbial political sausage-making (i.e., a nasty business you’d be appalled to watch). It appeared, he said, to un-do all of his DOGE spending cuts so laboriously made. Mainly, Elon deplored the failure to address the $36-trillion-plus national debt, widely recognized as a time-bomb on a short fuse liable to sink the whole USS United States. I will tell you a harsh truth: nobody will do anything about the national debt. The sheer math of our annual debt service is simply impossible. Our country is heading into some sort of bankruptcy proceeding, some kind of ferocious “work out” — as they say in the banking board-rooms.

Read more …

”John Ratcliffe is a genius,” a congressional source told Breitbart News in comments published on Sunday. “He just got career CIA officers to admit the 2016 ICA was corrupted and to offer up Brennan on a silver platter…

• Ex-CIA Chief Brennan Could Face Russiagate ‘Perjury’ Probe (RT)

Former CIA Director John Brennan could face a perjury probe over his role in the 2016 “Russiagate” conspiracy, which claimed Moscow worked to undermine Hilary Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign in favor of Donald Trump, according to US media. The current chief of the US spy agency, John Ratcliffe, has claimed that senior security officials manipulated aspects of the investigation, which was commissioned by then-President Barack Obama in 2016. Republican critics have long maintained that the final document was politically motivated and intended to damage Trump’s first presidency. Moscow has denied interfering in the US electoral process or “colluding” with Trump’s campaign.

Last month, Ratcliffe declassified an internal CIA review of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which some media outlets claim proves that Brennan lied under oath during a closed-door congressional hearing in 2017. Allegations of this nature have circulated for years. ”John Ratcliffe is a genius,” a congressional source told Breitbart News in comments published on Sunday. “He just got career CIA officers to admit the 2016 ICA was corrupted and to offer up Brennan on a silver platter… The DOJ could have a field day with this.” A second source said lawmakers were “stunned” by the contents of the internal review, claiming Brennan “knew the entire time that he was trying to wreck Trump’s presidency before it even started.”

The declassified review, released June 26, includes testimony from an intelligence official who described Brennan’s influence over the inclusion of references to the Steele dossier in the ICA. The dossier – a collection of unverified allegations linking Trump’s campaign to Russia – was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and funded by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The intelligence official said Brennan “showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness.” The spy chief reportedly wrote to skeptics: “My bottom line is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.” In his 2017 testimony, Brennan reportedly claimed he had not advocated for the dossier to be mentioned in the ICA.

Senior US intelligence officials are rarely prosecuted for misleading the public, even when the available evidence appears compelling. One notable example is James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, who told Congress in 2013 that the National Security Agency was not “wittingly” collecting data on millions of American citizens. Documents later leaked by Edward Snowden showed that the agency was doing precisely that. The former NSA contractor is facing prosecution in the US for exposing the mass surveillance program and was granted asylum in Russia.

Read more …

The cause of the failures, and the excuse for them at the same time..

• West Using ‘Russia Threat’ To Distract From Own Failures – Lavrov (RT)

Western leaders are deliberately painting Russia as a threat to distract their citizens from domestic economic and social woes, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. In an interview with the Hungarian newspaper Magyar Nemzet on Monday, Lavrov dismissed claims made by Western intelligence agencies that Moscow is plotting to attack or occupy Europe. “Perhaps those who make such claims know more about Russia’s plans than we do. At least we are unaware of our plans to ‘attack Europe’, let alone ‘occupy’ it,” he quipped. Lavrov said he generally concurs with analysts who believe that the “ruling circles in Europe and North America are working hard to create an image of Russia as an enemy to rally populations tired of social and economic problems.” He accused Western governments of systematically “demonizing” Russia through media manipulation and pushing the notion of Moscow harboring some kind of “imperial ambitions.”

Among the issues Western leaders hope to deflect attention from are inflation, unemployment, falling living standards, illegal migration, and rising crime, he added. Lavrov went on to criticize what he described as the EU’s transformation into a “military-political bloc” and “an appendix to NATO.” “This is a dangerous trend that could have far-reaching consequences for all Europeans,” he warned. The minister’s comments come on the heels of the NATO summit in The Hague last month during which the leaders of the bloc agreed to work toward a target of spending least 5% of GDP on defense – something US President Donald Trump has insisted on – and continue to support Ukraine. Moscow has consistently argued that military shipments to Kiev will only prolong the conflict without changing its outcome.

Read more …

“It has become much easier to invest in maintaining wars than to invest in achieving peace..”

• Brazil’s Lula Accuses NATO of Fueling Arms Race (RT)

NATO is fueling a global arms race by pushing for massive increases in military spending, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said. The US-led military bloc endorsed a plan last month to raise its defense spending target from 2% to 5% of GDP. Speaking on Sunday at the opening of the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, Lula said the world is experiencing a record number of armed conflicts since World War II and warned that NATO’s policies are exacerbating the situation. “NATO’s recent decision [to raise military spending to 5% of GDP] is fueling an arms race,” Lula said. “It has become much easier to invest in maintaining wars than to invest in achieving peace,” the Brazilian leader said, referring to previous Western promises to provide 0.7% of GDP to aid developing countries.

While not yet formalized, the NATO proposal has been backed by Secretary-General Mark Rutte and several member states, including the US and Poland. A number of Western leaders have justified the spending increase as a response to what they claim is a growing threat from Russia. Moscow has consistently denied any intention to attack NATO states and dismissed such warnings as baseless fearmongering aimed at justifying militarization and distracting from domestic problems. In an interview published on Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated that NATO’s expansion toward Russia’s borders and efforts to integrate Ukraine into the alliance constitute a direct threat to Russian security. He said these moves left Moscow with no choice but to launch its military operation against Kiev in 2022.

Lavrov also accused NATO of transforming itself into an offensive bloc, pointing to its past interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya. He claimed that NATO’s militarization and demonization of Russia are being used to deflect attention from inflation, migration, and other domestic problems in the West. The minister has also warned that NATO’s proposed spending increase could end up being “catastrophic” and lead to the bloc’s collapse. Moscow, meanwhile, intends to reduce its military spending in the coming years – a process that will be guided by “common sense, not made-up threats like NATO member states,” Lavrov said.

Read more …

“Freuding is not just any die-hard bellicist. He also serves as a dis/information warrior in a class of his own. That’s why German mainstream media call him a “social-media star” and “the YouTube General” who went “viral.”

• This NATO Fanboy Just Became Germany’s Army Chief (Amar)

Berlin’s energetic, ambitious, popular, and resolutely narrow-minded minister of defense Boris Pistorius has just made some high-level personnel moves. By far the single most politically significant of Pistorius’ new appointments is that of Major-General Christian Freuding as the new “Heeresinspekteur,” the head the land forces (in German: Heer), that is, the army in the strict sense of the term. This is a position of major influence because of the structure of Germany’s military and current rearmament plans, both with a key role for the army. Formally, Freuding has not (yet) scored the highest possible military rank. That would be the “Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr,” responsible for all four current service branches (army, navy, air force, and the new cyber and information units).

But, in reality, Freuding may well already have more political influence than any other German officer. This is due to two factors: Freuding clearly is a favorite of Pistorius. Indeed, his predecessor, General Alfons Mais, was not. Ironically, Mais was no less Russophobic than the worst of them. His bizarre, simplistic, and stereotyped views of Russia as a country that doesn’t care about its casualties are now most welcome in Germany (again). But Mais also could be “inconvenient”: Instead of meekly waiting for the politicians to get debt-driven rearmament into economy-draining overdrive, this soldier had a habit of complaining about the wait and making demands. That is one reason Mais is out and Freuding is in.

Freuding is a driven as well as rapidly advancing careerist who already served as adjutant to Ursula von der Leyen in those good old days when she was still only devastating the German political landscape. He clearly knows how not to antagonize but please his superiors. One way in which Freuding pleases Pistorius – and virtually the whole German political and mainstream media establishment – is that he is a perfect hardliner with respect to Russia in general and, in particular, when it comes to the West’s proxy war against the latter via Ukraine. That has also made him a perfect fit to lead both a new, centralized Defense Ministry planning and coordination body established in 2023 and, at the same time, a special office busy, in essence, with pumping arms into Ukraine.

Yet Freuding is not just any die-hard bellicist. He also serves as a dis/information warrior in a class of his own. That’s why German mainstream media call him a “social-media star” and “the YouTube General” who went “viral.” Apart from Freuding’s presence on traditional TV, there are his frequent appearances on the German military’s YouTube channel which score hundreds of thousands of views, occasionally even a million. What seems to have made the often wide-eyed – quite literally – general so popular is a combination of overly optimistic (polite expression) assessments of the Ukrainian and Western position in the Ukraine War, a certain boyish (also polite expression) but – it seems – infectious enthusiasm for arrows and tactical signs on maps, and, last but not least, a relentless insistence to fight this war, in effect, through to the last Ukrainian. And who knows, maybe even beyond that.

In the fall of 2022, after Ukraine recaptured some territories at unsustainable cost to men and materiel, Freuding went wild, enthusing about “incredible successes” and “euphoria.” Euphoria indeed. Last summer, when Ukraine started its predictably self-devastating offensive into Russia’s Kursk Region, Freuding replicated every single daft Kiev propaganda point, including the alleged “psychological effect” of invading “core Russian territory.” Incidentally, the excitable general seems to have a traditional German blind spot for just how big Russia is: In reality, the area temporarily seized by Kiev’s forces was miniscule – never more than one hundredth of a percent of Russian territory.

Read more …

“..citing its interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya. “From whom were NATO countries defending themselves there? Who attacked them?”

• Lavrov Explains How NATO Threatens Russia (RT)

NATO’s push to turn Ukraine into a foothold against Russia is a direct threat to national security, and left Moscow with no choice other than to start the military operation against Kiev, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. In an interview with the Hungarian newspaper Magyar Nemzet published on Monday, Lavrov argued that NATO has long ceased to be a defensive bloc, citing its interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya. “From whom were NATO countries defending themselves there? Who attacked them?” he said. The US-led military bloc has also been expanding towards Russia’s borders for years while seeking to turn Ukraine into a “military foothold” to contain Russia.

“The appearance of NATO bases in Ukraine and its involvement in the military alliance represents an immediate threat to our national security. Such a state of affairs would be unacceptable for us,” Lavrov stressed.In 2021, weeks prior to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Russia sought to address its concerns by requesting security guarantees from the US and NATO, hoping to preserve Ukraine’s non-aligned status. “Our initiative was rejected,” Lavrov said, adding that the West instead continued to “pump Ukraine with weapons to forcibly resolve the issues of Donbass and Crimea.” In the end, we were left with no alternative but to launch the special military operation. I am sure that any self-respecting country would have done exactly the same in that situation.

Lavrov singled out what he called Kiev’s crackdown on the Russian minority as another reason for the conflict. In the wake of the Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, Ukraine was “persecuting and killing Russians,” he said, pointing to the Odessa massacre that year in which dozens of anti-government activists were burned alive in the Trade Union House. Lavrov also accused Kiev of waging war on the Russian language and culture, saying it has pursued forced Ukrainization, which has harmed other ethnic minorities as well, including Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, Bulgarians, Armenians, Belarusians, and Greeks. The Russian foreign minister stressed that a durable settlement is impossible without addressing the root causes of the conflict, including rejecting Kiev’s NATO ambitions, ensuring the status of human rights in Ukraine, and international recognition of the “new territorial realities.”

Read more …

“The EU has committed nearly €14 trillion ($16.4 trillion) to defense investments over the next decade..”

But that still doesn’t buy them control, no strategic autonomy…

• EU Fears Losing US Military Software Support – NYT (RT)

EU officials are concerned that Washington could one day stop providing critical software updates for US-made military equipment, according to a New York Times report. The fear stems from uncertainty over the future of NATO and the policies of US President Donald Trump. The EU has committed nearly €14 trillion ($16.4 trillion) to defense investments over the next decade. Last month, the European Commission authorized the use of around €335 billion in pandemic recovery funds for military purposes. In May, it introduced a €150 billion debt facility to support defense efforts. Ukraine has been granted access to these funds alongside EU member states. Russia has denounced the steps as evidence of continued hostility by the bloc.

However, the EU is embarking on the unprecedented military spending spree without the technology base to match its ambitions, the outlet said on Sunday. The bloc lacks viable alternatives to advanced US-made military systems, including the F-35 stealth fighter, which costs around $80 million per jet. The absence of such capabilities raises doubts about the EU’s ability to achieve strategic autonomy, according to the report. The bloc remains deeply dependent on American platforms – from missile-defense systems and rocket launchers to cyber warfare tools – all of which rely on regular software updates from the US.

Some officials fear that Washington could ultimately withhold essential software updates – a concern heightened by Donald Trump’s renewed outreach to Russia and his skepticism toward NATO commitments, the NYT said. NATO members have since agreed to spend 3.5% on core military budgets and another 1.5% earmarked for areas such as cyber defenses and the preparation of civilian infrastructure. Concerns over tech dependency have become more urgent since the Trump administration suspended shipments of certain weapons to Ukraine, leaving EU nations to fill the gap, the NYT noted. Moscow has welcomed the move, suggesting that the freeze could speed up the end of the conflict.

Discussions continue in the EU over whether to build its own military industry or remain reliant on US technology, the report said. The mixed approach suggests that the bloc may continue to depend on key American technologies, even as it seeks greater defense independence. The debate comes amid speculation in the Western media and among some officials that Russia is preparing to eventually attack NATO countries in Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed such notions as “nonsense,” saying Moscow has no intention of invading NATO and that the US-led bloc is fueling an arms race and fabricating threats to justify higher spending.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Tucker Iran

Real
https://twitter.com/thesigmamindset/status/1941919825988849874

Rogan
https://twitter.com/LangmanVince/status/1942392076697514454

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 1 2025

Jul 012025
 
 July 1, 2025  Posted by at 9:39 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  52 Responses »


Cimabue Christ mocked c1280 (Photograph: Charles Platiau/Reuters)

 

• Trump’s Trip to ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Could Boost ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill’ (DS)
• Elon Musk Pledges to Launch Third Party if Big Beautiful Bill Passes (CTH)
• Musk ‘A Wonderful Guy’ – Trump (RT)
• Kevin Hassett Outlines Importance of Big Beautiful Bill (CTH)
• America’s New Long War (Douglas Macgregor)
• NATO’s 5% Spending Demand ‘Absolutely Impossible’ – Spain (RT)
• Canada Scraps Digital Service Tax On US Tech Giants To Revive Trade Talks (ZH)
• Trump Says TikTok Buyer Is “Group Of Very Wealthy People” (ZH)
• When It’s Too Dirty For The CIA…” Benz On USAID’s Litany Of Corruption (ZH)
• Stay Sane (James Howard Kunstler)
• Bessent Slams Fed For Delay On Rate Decisions (ZH)
• HHS Head RFK Jr Tells Tucker Carlson all the Terrible Stuff HHS is Doing (CTH)
• CNN Promotes ICE App to Help Illegal Aliens Avoid Capture (CTH)
• Trump the Greatest American President in History? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Stablecoins Are Becoming ‘Default Settlement Layer’ For Internet (CT)

 

 

vanJones

Benz

Pappé

Flynn

DOGE

 

 


Steve Keen

 

 

 

 

NOTE: From what I understand, Elon Musk’s problems with Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill policies are -to a large extent- about electricity generation. Trump claims it’s subsidies for Musk’s electric cars, but in reality it’s (AI) data centers. That’s where demand -growth- will be, and China gets that.

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1938569426200096997
https://twitter.com/XH_Lee23/status/1932281167342121246

 

 

 

 

Alligator Alcatraz is a keeper as a label.

• Trump’s Trip to ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Could Boost ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill’ (DS)

sPresident Donald Trump is visiting a detention center dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” on Tuesday, which the White House contends backs up the need to pass the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” A reporter on Monday asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt why Trump would travel to the detention center about 50 miles west of Miami while the fate of the key tax and spending legislation hangs in the balance in the Senate. “His trip to this detention facility underscores the need to pass the One Big, Beautiful Bill because we need more detention facilities across the country,” Leavitt said. “The last administration let in nearly 20 million illegal people from all over the world. This administration is focused on arresting and detaining them.” If the bill, which locks in the 2017 Trump tax cuts and includes new money for border and immigration enforcement, passes the Senate, it has to return to the House for final passage after narrow approval.

“In comparison to that 20 million illegal criminal population in our country, we only have 7,000 [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents in the interior who are doing this very important work,” the press secretary continued. “So obviously, we need more personnel, we need more resources. That’s why we need to pass the One Big, Beautiful Bill.” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., will also be at the detention center for the opening. “The facility is in the heart of the Everglades and will be informally known as Alligator Alcatraz,” Leavitt said. “There is only one road leading in. The only way out is a one-way flight. It is isolated and surrounded by dangerous wildlife and unforgiving terrain. The facility will have up to 5,000 beds to house, process and deport criminal illegal aliens. This is an efficient and low cost way to help carry out the largest deportation campaign in American history.”

The original Alcatraz was an island prison off the coast of California that was difficult to escape. The facility is shuttered, but continued to be a tourist attraction. She later stressed the facility is for criminal illegal aliens. “When you have illegal murderers and rapists and heinous criminals in a detention facility surrounded by alligators, yes I do think that’s a deterrent for them to try to escape,” Leavitt said. “We do know that some of these illegal criminals have escaped from other detention facilities like one in New Jersey. Of course we want to keep the American people safe. We want to remove these public safety threats from our streets and we want to effectively detain them as best as we can.”

Read more …

He’ll get attention alright. But how about votes?

• Elon Musk Pledges to Launch Third Party if Big Beautiful Bill Passes (CTH)

For those who have spent time in the lead up to this moment, you may remember our warning that Elon Musk would eventually take a position against President Trump and actively work to undermine the MAGA agenda therein. Tonight as the Senate debates the Big Beautiful Bill, that does not include subsidies for his electric vehicles and green energy initiatives, Elon Musk promises to organize a third party. This was all predictable.

The bill is imperfect, yes. However, the BBB contains the priorities of President Trump and those priorities are the goals and objectives of the people who voted to support his vision. Elon Musk is now actively working against the interests of the Make America Great Again movement, and he is intent on dividing the MAGA coalition.

Read more …

“..but I’m the boss..”

• Musk ‘A Wonderful Guy’ – Trump (RT)

Donald Trump has called Elon Musk a “wonderful guy,” despite the Tesla and SpaceX CEO’s renewed criticism of the US president’s so-called “big, beautiful” budget bill which would include a $5 trillion debt ceiling increase. Musk again lashed out at the legislation on Saturday, writing on X that it was “utterly insane” and predicting that it would hurl the US into “debt slavery” and destroy millions of jobs. However, his warnings did not prevent the Senate from narrowly voting to move forward on Trump’s bill a few hours later.

A war of words erupted between the two former allies after Musk stepped down as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) a month ago. Besides criticizing the budget bill, he attacked Trump personally, including linking the US president to deceased convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The world’s richest man later deleted the post on X, acknowledging that some of his comments “went too far.” When asked by Fox News on Sunday if he still keeps in touch with Musk, Trump replied: “I think he is a wonderful guy. I have not spoken to him much, but I think Elon is a wonderful guy, and I know he is going to do well always.”

“He is a smart guy. And he actually went and campaigned with me and this and that. But he got a little bit upset, and that was not appropriate,” the president added about his falling-out with the entrepreneur. Trump reiterated his claim that Musk had become upset not because of the “big, beautiful bill,” but because of the president’s plans to roll back electric vehicle (EV) mandates around the country. “Look, the electric vehicle mandate, the EV mandate, is a tough thing for him. I would, you know, I do not want everybody to have to have an electric car,” Trump explained. In mid-June, the president went on to sign three resolutions barring California from mandating EV sales and setting tailpipe emissions standards that had been used as a template by other US states to speed up the transition away from combustion engines.

Read more …

Hassett is White House National Economic Council Director.

• Kevin Hassett Outlines Importance of Big Beautiful Bill (CTH)

White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett appears on Fox News to outline some of the background details of the Big Beautiful Bill. Interestingly, after happy Hassett outlines the specifics of the benefits within the bill, he dodges a question about possibly becoming the next Fed Chairman.

Read more …

X post.

• America’s New Long War (Douglas Macgregor)

Wars frequently pick up where the last ones left off. World War II ended where World War 1 ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom (Gulf War II) began where Desert Storm (Gulf War I) concluded. Today there is every reason to expect the recent 12-day conflict between Iran on one side and Israel and the United States on the other to resume when the Israeli and U.S. Forces have replenished their stocks of missiles. No doubt, the Iranians will work hard to radically improve their integrated air defenses. For simplicity, let’s call the current conflict, the “New Long War.” As always, the New Long War continues with other means. GEN Erik Kurilla, the CENTCOM CDR is known for his close relationship with PM Bibi Netanyahu and his enthusiasm for the Greater Israel Project including seizure of Sinai and the Suez Canal.

Fully aware of the impossibility of rapidly conquering and seizing the Suez Canal without active American military support, General Kurilla may have received authority from President Trump to conduct joint planning. The presence of a newly established Russia phased array radar in Egypt suggests Moscow is aware of the possibility. The Russian phased array radar can reportedly track stealth aircraft and missile launches at long range. Further east, some 1,200 miles away in Azerbaijan, Israel’s Azeri-Turkish ally is allegedly preparing to attack Armenia and, potentially, northern Iran. GEN Kurilla also knows that Iran, like Russia, has a long history of cooperation with Orthodox Christian Armenia. Israel provided critical drone technology to Azerbaijan in its last victorious campaign against Armenia, and Azerbaijan likely provided support for Israeli operations against Iran.

GEN Kurilla is also acquainted with the MEK (Mojahedin-e-Khalq) an anti-Iranian Kurdish Force formerly aligned with Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq. The MEK fights for regime change in Iran and is predictably now aligned with the Trump Administration. Azerbaijan’s goal is a greater Azerbaijan created by forcibly annexing Iran’s Turkic Azeri population centered on Tabriz in Northern Iran. The unspoken assumption in Washington, Jerusalem, and Baku is that the Azeri Turks in Northern Iran will welcome the opportunity to join with their Azeri neighbors. The national leaders in all three States view this operation as contributing to the breakup and destruction of Iranian national unity, as well as the desired regime changes in Tehran. These operations are in the planning stage but could be launched at any time. These may or may not wait for the U.S. and Israeli missile arsenals to be replenished.

A similar approach was employed in Ukraine against Russia. However, the operation to remove President Putin from power in Moscow, to foment unrest and violence against Moscow inside Russia, Kazakhstan and other neighboring states was botched. Washington’s gamble failed. Russia remains intact. Russia’s resources remain beyond the reach of Western financial power. The Russian State and its military power are stronger than ever. Ukraine is destroyed. The history of Washington’s military interventions is not encouraging. Washington’s interventions since 1953 failed to cultivate the emergence of any liberal democratic states. If anything, Washington’s near constant interventionism spread authoritarianism across North Africa and the Middle East. The new long war seeks to subvert and destroy Iran promising a similar outcome.

However, this time, the New Long War will invite broader participation from numerous Muslim states, Russia, and China. In contrast to past interventions, the new long war could also prove impossible to sustain inside American society. As seen during the Black Lives Matter (BLM)/Antifa riots in 2020 and, more recently, the appearance of Mexican flags during anti-ICE demonstrations in Los Angeles, American societal cohesion is low, with ominous connotations for American national power. Notwithstanding President Trump’s tariff offensive, the trade policies sponsored by both parties for at least 40 years encouraged de-industrialization. The problem is inseparable from immigration policy. Since 1965, America has admitted over 50 million legal immigrants, most from the developing world. Today, there may be as many as 50 million illegal immigrants inside the U.S., including 20 to 30 million illegals that arrived during the Biden administration.

Simultaneously, real wages for working-class Americans stagnated despite real increases in productivity and soaring corporate profits. At the same time, Washington’s financialization of the economy—a form of rent extraction, with profits earned through privileged access to new money created by the Federal Reserve—combined with the destruction of American manufacturing, supports a massive wealth transfer mechanism. Economic data collected between 1979 and 2018 shows that while productivity increased by 59.7%, hourly compensation for non-supervisory workers rose by only 17.5%. The difference went to capital owners and financial intermediaries. Wealth moved from America’s dying middle class to the top 10 percent of income earners.

The implications of these developments for Washington’s global political, military, and economic power are profound. Why? There are multiple reasons, but three are of immediate importance:
First, in the five decades since Washington disestablished the gold standard, the debt-to-GDP ratio has grown from 40 percent to more than 120 percent of GDP and it continues to climb. Consequently, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet expanded from $80 billion to well over $8 trillion. With spending levels and deficit trajectories that are not sustainable, the notion of a trillion-dollar defense budget is absurd.

Second, there is an undeniable shift in the global balance of economic power. A new intercontinental commercial trading and monetary system is rising. It’s called BRICS, an intergovernmental organization consisting of ten nation-states: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Together, these nation-states constitute more than a third of global GDP. A further 50 or more nation-states that want to join BRICS will push it to nearly 50 percent of global GDP. More important, China, Russia, India, and Iran are civilizational constructs—power centers that, after centuries of trailing in development behind the West (or enduring its exploitation), are now roaring back to life. In some ways, the world of the 21st century may be on track to resurrect the constellation of powers that dominated the world in the 11th century.

Third, the proliferation of technology across national borders combined with the growth of high human capital inside BRICS is conferring military capabilities on BRICS members that were previously unavailable to any but Western Powers. Put another way, the attempt to repeat a Desert Storm scenario anywhere on the Eurasian landmass would spell disaster for American military power. Finally, Washington’s political class manifests much less regard for the long-term strategic interests of its own citizens—their security and prosperity. As a result, Washington pays an exorbitant price in reputation and treasure for policies that confront Palestinians with the choice of death or expulsion from their homelands.

There are many moving parts in the regional strategy outlined at the beginning of this post. Assumptions of tacit acceptance or rapid capitulation are implicit and dangerous. When Hitler was briefed on the expected Soviet reaction to Operation Barbarossa, Major General Ernst Koestring, a Prussian officer fluent in Russian from a family that had lived in Moscow since the reign of Catherine the Great, advised: “Initially, German forces will advance rapidly. The various peoples on the Soviet periphery will likely welcome the German forces. Resistance will be weak. But when the Germans advance into Russian territory, the resistance will be tremendous. The Russian population will fight for every square meter of territory.” Hitler politely thanked him but remained convinced that poor Soviet military performance in Finland in 1939 suggested a different outcome in 1941. Koestring, of course, was right.

Diplomacy is the art of the possible. Warfare is always a gamble. A partial success in the diplomatic sphere is preferable to gambling on success in war that may turn into catastrophic failure. Unless the American electorate demands accountability for what the White House and Congress do in their name, Americans will face a grim reckoning with financial, political, and military reality at home and abroad.

Read more …

Only Spain is honest. EuroNATO doesn’t have the weapons nor the industry capacity.

• NATO’s 5% Spending Demand ‘Absolutely Impossible’ – Spain (RT)

NATO member Spain has roundly rejected demands by US President Donald Trump and military bloc chief Mark Rutte to increase its spending on militarisation to 5% of the country’s GDP. European members of the NATO are not capable of meeting the US demand, Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles insisted to Spanish lawmakers on Friday, dismissing the 5% target declared by Rutte at last week’s bloc summit as “absolutely impossible” to achieve. ”Everyone is absolutely convinced that right now there is no industry capable of absorbing 5%,” she told the country’s Senate Defense Commission. “We can say whatever we want, we can dress it up or disguise it, but no industry can take it on.”

Madrid pushed back against the target ahead of the summit in the Netherlands, proposing a more modest 2.1% spending level. Last year, Spain stood out as the NATO member dedicating the least percentage of its GDP (1.28%) to the military, compared to 4.12% in the case of Poland. Robles, however, claimed the comparison is misleading. According to Robles, European defense companies lack both the skilled workforce and access to raw materials needed to scale up production – even if governments managed to provide the necessary funding. Other NATO members privately acknowledge the same concerns and are stalling for time, she claimed.

Spain is “a serious, reliable, committed, and responsible ally, who speaks less and does more,” Robles told an event at Madrid’s Higher Center for Defense Studies. The national defense industry “does not need lessons from anyone,” she declared, suggesting Trump “should have used his influence to end the war in Ukraine” instead of pressuring Spain to boost military spending. Trump claimed during his presidential campaign last year that he could end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine “in 24 hours.” Since taking office, however, he has acknowledged the situation is more complicated than he initially believed. Moscow views NATO’s intention to grant membership to Ukraine as an existential threat and characterizes the ongoing conflict as a proxy war waged by the bloc “to the last Ukrainian.”

Read more …

Some people present this as positive for Carney. I still see the opposite.

• Canada Scraps Digital Service Tax On US Tech Giants To Revive Trade Talks (ZH)

Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne wrote on X overnight that Canada has withdrawn its controversial Digital Services Tax (DST) on Silicon Valley tech giants, such as Alphabet and Meta, in order to restart stalled trade negotiations with the Trump administration. It’s another win for President Trump, as his ‘Art of the Deal’ tactics continue to bring far-left progressive countries back in line with his ‘America First’ agenda. “Canada is engaged in complex negotiations on a new economic and security partnership with the U.S.,” Champagne wrote on X late Sunday. He continued, “Rescinding the DST will allow the negotiations to make vital progress and reinforce our work to create jobs and build prosperity for all Canadians.”

https://twitter.com/justwannasayth2/status/1939508514587570182?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1939508514587570182%7Ctwgr%5Ecbab1c2016f9d159fc8bdd558138dcc17c934a65%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fcanada-scraps-digital-service-tax-us-tech-giants-revive-trade-talks

As a freser, Canada’s DST was a 3% tax on the revenue that big tech companies earn from Canadian users, specifically from online advertising, marketplaces, and user data. Canada’s move follows President Trump’s Friday afternoon announcement calling for all trade discussions with the country to be terminated. He also threatened to impose new tariffs within a week. Also last Friday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC that U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would investigate the tax to “determine the amount of harm to the U.S. companies and the U.S. economy in general.” The stakes are high for Canada, as three-quarters of its exports are shipped to the U.S.—including energy products, other commodities, and automobiles—so tariffs would be devastating to the local economy. Canada has taken the common-sense approach of returning to the negotiating table with Trump to work out a trade deal that benefits everyone.

UBS analyst Jason Cheng commented overnight on the developments: Canada has withdrawn its digital services tax on technology companies in a move to restart trade talks with the U.S. This came after the pause in talks last Friday when U.S. President Donald Trump called an end to discussions with Canada, in retaliation for the digital tax. USDCAD is trading lower post the headline. Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, told AP News that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s retreat was a “clear victory” for Trump. “President Trump forced PM Carney to do exactly what big tech wanted. U.S. tech executive will be very happy with this outcome,” Béland said. Moments ago, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick thanked Canada for removing the DST tax.

Read more …

“I was No. 1 on TikTok in its history. Can you believe that? … So I guess I like TikTok.”

• Trump Says TikTok Buyer Is “Group Of Very Wealthy People” (ZH)

President Donald Trump, in a pre-taped interview on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, revealed that “a group of very wealthy people” is prepared to acquire TikTok’s U.S. operations. While he did not disclose the identities of the investors, Trump hinted that the names could be made public in the coming weeks. “We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way. I think I’ll probably need China approval, and I think President Xi will probably do it,” Trump told Bartiromo, noting, “It’s a group of very wealthy people.” TikTok’s future in the U.S. has been uncertain since the passage of the 2024 bipartisan law, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), which requires the platform’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest its ownership or face a nationwide ban.

The legislation was fueled by growing concerns over various national security threats, including foreign interference in elections and potential misuse of sensitive user data. Just weeks ago, Trump once again delayed enforcement of PAFACA through an executive order, pushing the deadline back to mid-September. The original implementation date had been set for his inauguration in January. Trump has been a supporter of TikTok, recently touting his popularity on the app: “I was No. 1 on TikTok in its history. Can you believe that? … So I guess I like TikTok.” Trump has tasked Vice President JD Vance with overseeing efforts to find a potential buyer, which could include Oracle’s Larry Ellison and firms like Perplexity AI and AppLovin.

Read more …

“I see a lot of bathwater and very little baby.”

• When It’s Too Dirty For The CIA…” Benz On USAID’s Litany Of Corruption (ZH)

For those who turned into the live debate last night, we apologize for the ”demonstration of Wirecast” mantra that played repeatedly. This was not a mass MK Ultra sleeper cell activation but a glitch with our streaming software. And, yes, we have an active Wirecast subscription. So… please direct your hate mail to support@telestream.net. That aside — Keith Knight, Mike Benz, and Cenk Uygur — respectively the abolitionist, reformist, and proponent — had a great debate. Here were the highlights for those who missed it: Responding to Cenk’s defense of USAID’s HIV programs with the phrase, “Keep the baby with the bathwater,” Benz retorted sharply: “I see a lot of bathwater and very little baby,” citing forced sterilizations in Peru and aggressive abortion campaigns in Latin America and Africa as evidence that USAID is sometimes involved in “the opposite of saving babies… USAID is taking the lives of babies.”

Benz further detailed covert operations masked as health aid, referencing a CIA-backed, USAID-funded fake vaccine program in Pakistan that collected blood and DNA under the guise of counterterrorism. “Nobody would think [HIV prevention] would be where they would establish a recruiting office for regime change,” he noted on a similar program in Cuba. Even massive charity efforts like Band Aid and Live Aid come under fire, with Benz alleging that “of the 100 million raised, 95 million went to purchase weapons for rebels in Somalia.” In sum, Benz urges scrutiny: “We have to look at what USAID is doing vs. what they say they are doing.”

https://twitter.com/JohnMcCloy/status/1939119325866000788

“When it’s too dirty for the CIA…” Benz’s view boiled down: USAID is a cover arm of U.S. foreign policy. “USAID at its heart is a CIA function.” Even seemingly benign programs—whether about “food security, public health, independent media, [or] rule of law”—are, according to Benz, “secretly accomplishing some goal the State Department wants to achieve.” These programs can also channel funds back home to prop up the “political apparatus” through kickbacks. Benz underscored the lack of oversight, warning that “USAID has only ONE METHOD OF ACCOUNTABILITY… The Inspector General,” and that it can “block Congress,” effectively bypassing legislative checks. Pointing to the Zunzuneo scandal—USAID’s secret attempt to incite an Arab Spring-style uprising in Cuba—Benz noted that when the operation was exposed, “Obama denied knowledge because he didn’t give a presidential finding & the Congress & Senate said we didn’t know this was happening.”

“Foreign aid has gone way too rogue,” he concluded, noting that USAID has now been expelled from eight countries. His prescription is one of reform: “USAID has to go into the shop for repairs before it is driven back out onto the road again.” For the abolitionist perspective — i.e. no foreign aid whatsoever — tune into the full debate below for remarks by Keith Knight, editor at Scott Horton’s Libertarian Institute. Knight is one of the brightest young thinkers among modern libertarians:

Read more …

“Betting against Donald Trump is usually a bad idea.” —Insurrection Barbie on “X”

• Stay Sane (James Howard Kunstler)

What apparently riles the credentialed political Left — the “gay / race communists” in the apt new phrase — more than anything, is that most of the country has opted to not be insane. This follows a decade-long attempt to drive the country insane, of course, to believe in things that are patently untrue and absurd, and to utilize falsehood and absurdity to garishly destroy the nation.

So, it fits that Donald Trump, the uber-realist of political game-playing, pushes what remains of the Democratic Party into a rapture of impotent rage. They’ve got nothing left but the empty acting-out of lunatics in an asylum of their own making. The wrathful grass-widows choking on their chardonnay in Martha’s Vineyard, the furious nose-rings steaming under their keffiyehs in the summer heat, the “Transtifas” storming police lines with their ridiculous umbrellas, the doddering Boomer-hippies reenacting the festive protest marches of 1968, minus a single coherent principle, the wigged-out congresspersons storming the ICE detention centers, the Covid vaccine victims duped into multiple organ failure (their hearts and brains especially), the “allies” of every loser group from Bangor to Brentwood in a frenzy of baffled grievance — these poor, lost wretches so far gone that even the likes of David Axelrod, James Carville, and Frank Luntz can’t stand to be associated with them anymore, is all the Democrats have left in their manure-stuffed donkey stable.

The abiding mystery remains: what exactly set in motion this fantastic cascade of political madness, especially among the highly educated demographic. The seemingly obvious answer is higher education itself, infested since the 1960s with Marxist zealots, sexual malcontents, and resentment-filled diversity hires. And while that has surely played its part, it doesn’t sufficiently explain the ugly dynamic.

Another explanation runs toward a plot by international “oligarchical” corruptniks to corner all the goodies of the world and either turn the rest of us into their slaves, or just kill us off — and to do it in such a way as to rub it in our faces, so as to provide the corruptniks with some mirthful entertainment as they go about their dastardly business. For instance, the recent weekend wedding of Huma Abedin and Alex Soros on the very day that the moiling minions whom they sponsor held their nationwide “No Kings” rallies inn the streets.

Huma, the bride, you recall, was Hillary Clinton’s sidekick back in Hillary’s glory days, especially the time of her glorious and inevitable rise (her regal “turn”) to occupy the White House, thwarted inconceivably by the preposterous showman, Mr. Trump. Hillary, you also might recall, left the White House broke-ass-broke in 2001 only to agglomerate a stupendous multi-hundred-million-dollar fortune working as a US Senator and then Secretary of State (salaries $170,000 and $260,600 respectively). That is, Hillary acquired her great fortune in about the same way that the royalty-of-old acquired theirs — by grift and theft.

And Huma, former wife of disgraced congressman and convicted Internet pervert Anthony Weiner, is now wed to decade-younger financial royalist Alex Soros, son of George, who made the bulk of his fortune (estimated $7.2-billion) shorting the British pound sterling in 1992 and went on to found a vast array of NGOs and so-called philanthropies (the Open Society Foundations) that specialize in influencing elections worldwide, conducting regime-change campaigns, and lately financing seditious movements within the United States. Heir-apparent Alex is reported to have taken over the day-to-day operations of that network — but, we must have no kings, you understand.

Read more …

The next Fed chief?

• Bessent Slams Fed For Delay On Rate Decisions (ZH)

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday criticized Federal Reserve policymakers for what he described as their hesitant posture on interest rates, while signaling that the U.S. Treasury is unlikely to alter its current strategy on debt issuance by increasing long-term bond sales. In a wide-ranging interview, Bessent said that recent yields on long-duration Treasurys make it a poor time to lengthen the government’s debt profile. “Why would we do that?” Bessent said on Bloomberg Television. “The time to have done that would have been in 2021, 2022.” Ten-year Treasury yields currently stand at about 4.26%, well above the levels of shorter-term instruments such as the two-year note (3.73%) and 12-month bills (3.81%). Bessent suggested issuing more long-term bonds at these rates would be counterproductive, especially given his expectation that inflation will continue to moderate and pull interest rates lower across the maturity spectrum.

“As we see inflation come down, I think the whole curve in parallel can shift down,” he said, referencing the Treasury yield curve, a key barometer for economic sentiment. Bessent, who succeeded Janet Yellen as Treasury chief, has retained much of his predecessor’s issuance strategy, despite having previously criticized her for over-reliance on short-term borrowing. At the time, he argued the policy was politically motivated to suppress long-term borrowing costs ahead of the 2024 election. But Bessent emphasized that now is not the moment to pivot. “Why would we do it at these rates, if we are more than one standard deviation above the long-term rate?” he asked rhetorically.

While expressing confidence in the direction of fiscal policy and trade strategy, Bessent leveled pointed criticism at the Federal Reserve’s rate-setting stance. They “seem a little frozen at the wheel,” he said of Fed officials. “My worry here is that, having fallen down on the American people in 2022, the Fed’s now looking at their feet,” rather than looking ahead. The Treasury Secretary cited the Fed’s delayed response to rising prices in 2022 as a pivotal misstep and warned that similar inertia could hinder the central bank’s ability to respond to changing economic conditions. “The Fed made a gigantic mistake in 2022,” he added.

Bessent also pushed back against the idea that recent tariffs have stoked inflation. “We have seen no inflation from tariffs,” he said, calling such effects “transitory” and suggesting they result in only a one-time price adjustment. He hinted at more trade activity on the horizon, saying he expects a “flurry of trade deals” in the days leading up to the July 9 negotiating deadline. The U.S. has already reached agreements with the United Kingdom and China, with ongoing talks still underway.

Meanwhile, as speculation mounts over who might succeed Fed Chair Jerome Powell when his term ends in May 2026, Bessent acknowledged that discussions are already underway. “Obviously there are people who are currently at the Fed who are under consideration,” he said, adding that the administration is eyeing the January 2026 seat opening as a potential stepping stone for the next chair. Observers have noted Governor Christopher Waller – a Trump-era appointee who has recently called for possible rate cut – as a likely contender. Bessent also mentioned that current Governor Adriana Kugler’s term concludes in January, providing another possible opening for strategic appointments. He downplayed speculation about his own interest in the job. “I’ll do whatever the president wants,” he said, but added that he already has the “best job in DC”

Looking forward, Bessent expressed optimism about the direction of U.S. fiscal strategy. He voiced support for the Republican budget bill currently advancing in Congress, describing it as a “start” in the effort to bring U.S. debt under control while promoting economic growth. Bessent also suggested that we could see a lowering of rates, as inflation is “very tame,” adding that he is confident the fiscal policy bill will progress in the coming hours.

Read more …

“..terrible vaccines, dangerous food additives, horrible health effects from toxic food chemicals, along with corruption, bribery and pay-to-play schemes..”

“..someone ought to tell him he’s the Health and Human Services Secretary now..”

• HHS Head RFK Jr Tells Tucker Carlson all the Terrible Stuff HHS is Doing (CTH)

As Robert F Kennedy Jr outlines all the bad things the Health and Human Services agency is doing, terrible vaccines, dangerous food additives, horrible health effects from toxic food chemicals, along with corruption, bribery and pay-to-play schemes within the medical advisory system, someone ought to tell him he’s the Health and Human Services Secretary now. Secretary RFK JR sits down with Tucker Carlson to outline all the deleterious impacts from the processes that flow out of the healthcare system he now controls.

Chapters:
0:00 The Organized Opposition to RFK’s Mission
6:46 Uncovering the Reason for Skyrocketing Rates of Autism
13:41 How Big Pharma Enslaves Doctors and Profits off Sickness
24:22 Is It Possible to End the Corrupt Relationship Between Big Pharma and Corporate Media?
33:35 Will RFK End Vaccine Company’s Lawsuits Immunity?
38:37 The Most Damaging Vaccine in History
47:49 Will There Be Compensation for the Vaccine-Injured?
53:47 Did the Covid Vaccine Kill More People Than It Saved?
57:50 RFK’s Firing of So-Called “Experts”
1:01:58 How Big Pharma Makes Billions off the Vaccine Schedule
1:05:08 The Real Reason Fauci Got a Pardon
1:10:42 When Will We See the Declassification of the JFK, RFK, and MLK Files?
1:20:51 How Trump Is Transforming Washington

Read more …

“Apparently the Apple and Google stores have authorized the ICE Block app to be downloaded from their services.”

• CNN Promotes ICE App to Help Illegal Aliens Avoid Capture (CTH)

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked about this earlier today during her press briefing. CNN is promoting an early warning system for cell phone users that alerts them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity. In response, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said, “This sure looks like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a 500% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Apparently the Apple and Google stores have authorized the ICE Block app to be downloaded from their services. There are a lot of vested financial interests in the human trafficking and illegal alien business. This ICE Block app, is part of the system that perpetuates the exploitation and criminal illegal activity. Given the nature of the national security interests involved, one has to wonder how this type of technology does not run afoul of the law. UPDATE: As noted, there could be positives. Download the App., and if you encounter a long checkout line at WalMart, Home Depot, DMV or Post Office etc., activate the ICE alert and watch what happens.

Read more …

“Trump seems to be saying that instead of war let’s go into business together.”

• Trump the Greatest American President in History? (Paul Craig Roberts)

The violence that has been the primary characteristic of the 21st century has reached a level of recklessness that threatens life on our planet. It was only the other day that some unidentified person or agency green-lighted an attack on Russia’s strategic triad. According to Russian war doctrine, this attack, of which President Trump says he was unaware, requires a Russian strategic response. Putin, being a humane and reasonable person averse to war , side-stepped the issue by declaring the attack to be an act of terrorism and not of war. It is extraordinary that no one is interested in identifying who so irresponsibly green-lighted an attack that could have initiated nuclear war. How can Washington and the Kremlin be so insouciant and uninterested in a provocation that could have resulted in nuclear war? Whoever green-lighted the attack did not know that Putin would simply not acknowledge that such an attack took place. Whoever green-lighted the attack was OK with launching a nuclear war. What is to prevent such a thing again happening?

We must be thankful that Putin side-stepped the issue. But we must also consider the effect of Putin’s side-stepping the attack. The person or agency that authorized the attack must be confident that Russia will never respond to any provocation, and, therefore, the provocations will increase in their intensity. At some point, it won’t be possible for Putin to side-step the provocation. Thus, Putin might be bringing on the war he hopes to avoid by side-stepping provocations. In addition to the conflict with Russia, there is the conflict with Iran. Netanyahu, using the powerful influence of the Israel Lobby over Washington, pressured President Trump to bomb Iran’s uranium enrichment sites, claiming without evidence that Iran was producing a nuclear weapon.

Trump in what might be an act of brilliance dropped the bombs on the Iranian sites and declared them obliterated whether they were or not, thereby removing Netanyahu’s only argument for war with Iran. With the nuclear facilities destroyed, there can be no bomb. Thus, Trump removed Netanyahu’s case for preemptive war against Iran, thereby removing the reason for wider conflict in the Middle East. Let’s hope Iran understands what has really happened, and cooperates with President Trump in removing the conflict from the agenda. There still remains anger caused by Israel’s merciless destruction of Gaza and its people. How a people who claim to be victims of a holocaust can submit Palestinians to one is difficult to comprehend. But the Arab states that could protest have all been destroyed by American presidents for Israel.

Washington’s bombs have turned Iraq, Libya, and Syria into non-functioning states, and Hezbollah has been decapitated and cut off from supplies. The only remaining Arab country is Saudi Arabia, the military ability of which is marginal. Washington sicced the Saudis on Yemen, and it was unsuccessful. The Houthis are the only remaining Arabs, other than the remains of Hamas, who continue to oppose Israel. They are dependent on Iran, who are Persians, not Arabs, and if Trump has succeeded in removing Netanyahu’s justification for war with Iran, it seems likely that Iran will call off the Houthis. This opens a chance for peace in the Middle East after a quarter century of America’s wars against Arabs for Israel, wars disguised as a “war on terror” and “bringing democracy” in order to deceive the American people about the expenditure of trillions of American taxpayers’ dollars for the exclusive benefit of Israel, while American veterans who were deceived into fighting the wars for Greater Israel are left to live on the streets.

Previously, in a joint news conference with Netanyahu, Trump declared Gaza as a US possession that would be the anchor of an American reconstructed Middle East. In place of Greater Israel–an aspiration, not a reality–which with its recent Israeli additions now extends from the Nile to include Pakistan and half of Saudi Arabia, Trump indicated that there would be a profit-sharing American colony, unlike the colonial extractive colonies of prior times. Trump has talked it up with the Saudis, and there are indications that he wants to add Iran to the deal. Trump seems to be saying that instead of war let’s go into business together. This plan requires the Zionists to give up their agenda for Israeli hegemony over the Middle East. Can the Zionists help to save the world from war?

If Trump can pull this off, assuming that he is thinking along this line–he is so changeable that it is hard to know–Trump would go down as the greatest president in American history. Instead of Muslims and Israelis exhausting themselves in wars, they would be making money together. There is no better outcome. Can we get there?

Read more …

“Tether holds more US Treasurys than Germany.”

Don’t know enough about this yet.

• Stablecoins Are Becoming ‘Default Settlement Layer’ For Internet (CT)

Stablecoins have become the backbone of internet payments, with adoption now outpacing major traditional card networks in onchain volume, according to Noam Hurwitz, head of engineering at Alchemy.
Hurwitz told Cointelegraph that stablecoins have seen “explosive” adoption, adding that they are “becoming the default settlement layer for the internet.” Companies like PayPal and Stripe are integrating stablecoins to leverage onchain infrastructure, enabling faster and cheaper transactions. “They’ve already surpassed Visa and Mastercard in onchain volume by 7%,” Hurwitz noted, signaling a decisive shift in how money moves online. Alchemy, which provides infrastructure to some of the largest stablecoin ecosystems, is at the center of this transformation. Hurwitz said Alchemy is “the onchain provider for Robinhood Wallet” and powers stablecoin flows for fintech giants like Visa, Stripe, Circle, and PayPal.

Hurwitz said that stablecoins make money “cheap, fast, global, and secure to transfer.” These features have made them popular for various purposes, with broad adoption emerging across cross-border payments and prediction markets like Polymarket. He added that stablecoins have become massive buyers of US Treasurys, with Tether alone generating $13 billion in profits last year while holding around $113 billion in US debt. “Tokenized money is the base of the tokenized financial system,” Hurwitz said, calling recent financial innovation built on this foundation “exciting.” Hurwitz said stablecoins are already functioning as the “default rails” for internet payments in many respects but flagged challenges stemming from the fragmented blockchain landscape.

Institutions, he explained, want to move quickly but must assess provider reliability and counterparty risks, especially in a nascent industry. “Can a small startup really support enterprise-grade operations while building and scaling the services they need?” he asked. Hurwitz pointed to Kinexys, a tokenized bank deposit launched by JP Morgan, as a major milestone. The permissioned deposit token enables institutional clients to access yield-bearing deposits on a public blockchain with “24/7 settlement, near real-time liquidity and the potential ability to pay interest to holders.” Last week, the US Senate passed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, a landmark bill establishing federal guardrails for stablecoins.

“With the recent passage of the Genius Act, the regulatory landscape is becoming clearer and more structured, which benefits established financial players while also encouraging innovation,” Hurwitz said. Meanwhile, Hurwitz pointed out key technical bottlenecks in improving developer and end-user experience despite strong growth. “Companies benefit immensely from settling on crypto rails, but want to decouple the user experience from the underlying technology — and doing so takes deep technical expertise,” he explained. Looking ahead, Hurwitz expects most financial services to deploy their own blockchains, especially layer 2 networks, to better scale and monetize their ecosystems.

He predicted that infrastructure improvements would drive “seamless crosschain interoperability” between these networks, enabling a more connected and efficient financial system built on stablecoins. Despite Hurwitz’s optimistic view of stablecoins, a new Bank for International Settlements (BIS) report challenges the notion that they can serve as money in a modern financial system. The BIS Annual Economic Report 2025 claims stablecoins fail critical singleness, elasticity, and integrity tests. The organization described stablecoins as “digital bearer instruments” that resemble financial assets more than actual money.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Marik

Pfizer

RFK
https://twitter.com/DiedSuddenly_/status/1939468926708298061
Scott
https://twitter.com/AutismCapital/status/1939363439971021280

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle May 12 2025

May 122025
 
 May 12, 2025  Posted by at 9:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  45 Responses »


Frank Walton Crows on a beach 1884

 

• Bessent Says US, China Made “Substantial Progress” On Tariffs Deal (ZH)
• President Trump’s Trade Strategy with China is Crushing Beijing (CTH)
• Trump Announces Order To Reduce Prescription Drug Prices By Up To 80% (ZH)
• Scott Ritter: Putin’s Peace Talks Force Zelensky to Put Up or Shut Up (Sp.)
• Ukraine Should Agree To Putin’s Proposal of Talks ‘Immediately’ – Trump (RT)
• Trump Responds Favorably To Putin Peace Talks Proposal (RT)
• Putin, Trump, Erdogan Can Steer Ukraine Conflict to Peace – Sachs (Sp.)
• Moscow Outlines Basis For Peace Negotiations With Kiev (RT)
• Zelensky Wants Ceasefire To Rearm Military – Senior Russian Diplomat (RT)
• Zelensky Responds To Putin’s Peace Talks Proposal (RT)
• Macron Lukewarm On Putin Peace Talks Offer (RT)
• Slovakia’s Fico Torches West’s Peace Hypocrisy: They Want Endless War (Sp.)
• US Greenlights Long-Range Missile Transfer To Ukraine – NYT (RT)
• US Ceasefire In Yemen: Retreat Masquerading As Restraint (Iskandar)
• The Judicial Appointment Train Is Leaving the Station (Jipping)
• Dems Aren’t ‘Fighting Oligarchy’, They Are the Oligarchy (Stepman)
• French Media Quash Claims Macron, Merz & Starmer Hid Cocaine On Train (ZH)
• Trump’s ‘Nuclear’ Deportation Options (Jim Rickards)

 

 

 

 

Watters

https://twitter.com/Megatron_ron/status/1921608285419143354

Biden

Draino

Logan

 

 

 

 

Bessent’s been busy. Just in: US to lower tariffs on China to 30%, China to lower tariffs on US to 10%, for next 90 days.

“..it’s important to understand how quickly we were able to come to agreement which were that perhaps the differences were not so large as maybe thought.”

• Bessent Says US, China Made “Substantial Progress” On Tariffs Deal (ZH)

Just hours after Trump praised China tariff talks, saying that “great progress” had been made and that a “total reset” of relations was on the table, the second day of trade negotiations between the US and China concluded moments ago, and there was more good news: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said that the US and China made “substantial progress” adding that they will share more details on Monday. The announcement followed hours of meetings between Bessent, Greer and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng. The talks were hosted by the Swiss ambassador to the United Nations, whose residence was used as the venue for the two countries’ teams.

[..] Bessent said that “talks were productive” and involved China’s Vice Premier, two Vice Ministers who were integrally involved, Ambassador Jamieson and myself.” Bessent said that he “will be giving details tomorrow.” “I spoke to President Trump, as did Ambassador Jamieson last night, and he is fully informed of what is going on. There will be a complete briefing tomorrow morning.” Separately, USTR Jamieson Greer said that “it’s important to understand how quickly we were able to come to agreement which were that perhaps the differences were not so large as maybe thought.””That being said, there was a lot of groundwork that went into these two days… we’re confident that the deal we struck with our Chinese partners will help us to resolve, work toward resolving that national emergency.”

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1921599107841339899?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1921599107841339899%7Ctwgr%5E7eaffc426428da9e8d12261d96b5526084e8e877%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fbessent-says-us-china-made-substantial-progress-deal-after-very-constructive-2-days

Tensions between the world’s two biggest economies reached a new high point after President Donald Trump steadily increased tariffs on Beijing to 145%. The duties are supposed to address China’s role in the fentanyl trade, its massive trade surplus with the US, and respond to Beijing’s retaliatory measures imposed after Trump’s opening salvo. China in response increased its tariffs on US goods to 125%. Looking forward, however, Goldman expects a substantial drop in tariffs, expecting them to be cut by at least a half.

The tariff tit-for-tat led to a standoff between the world’s two largest economies, with neither side wanting to budge and no off-ramp in sight; however amid the economic slowdown, both sides acknowledged a reduction in tensions and tariffs is necessary and public talks were announced.

Read more …

China is allergic to unemployment. They’d rather keep the production lines open and sell the products, without the high end labels, for 10-20% of the original price.

• President Trump’s Trade Strategy with China is Crushing Beijing (CTH)

President Donald Trump is confronting the dragon behind the panda mask with precision. It’s very obvious the prior reconnaissance, trade probes and tariff tests of ’17, ’18, ’19, are paying dividends. President Trump has cut off the transnational shipping lanes by globalizing the tariffs against China. Beijing is in a forced holding pattern waiting to see the outcome of Southeast Asia and European trade agreements. Having spent some serious time in the field in advance of ‘Liberty Day’ all of my contacts have the same message; China is trying to find position. In a little reported reality, in order to offset the problem, many Chinese manufacturers have actually continued the production of several branded product lines (very well-known and established brands) despite the absence of orders for the finished goods from the companies.

Several shipments of those finished goods have started to arrive at China-partnered ports. This is very interesting, because it may lead to market dumping of a higher quality product than most anticipate. Within the apparel sector, ASEAN consumers cannot afford the fashion branded product at the prices determined by the actual brand owners. However, there is now a strong likelihood -based on what is being reported by the receivers- that the product itself will be marketed -likely dumped- without the brand label. This is actually high-quality apparel distributed for a fraction of the price of the brand. I’ll be getting more details on this soon, however, it looks like the broad outlines are verified by multiple sources. I’ll use some fake names to explain. China is sending finished “branded” goods to the Philippines, without labeling. The receiving company awaits instructions.

Ex. “Lululemon” products arrive finished, but missing labels – the product is identical, but the IP is now stripped. The product, a summer or fall lineup, is then rebranded “Opal” apparel (fake name example) made in Philippines, packaged in a similar high-end fashion and shipped to USA where a new -mostly online- branded and marketed store sells the items. The marketing is done through a massive purchase of digital ad space on social media, with big incentives for fashion influencers. The current holding point (screwing up the works for Beijing) is the unknown future U.S. tariff rate against Philippines; but the manufacturing and subsequent inventory buildup is happening. I am told this same process is happening in small durable goods, albeit at a slower pace. The Chinese delegation currently running through Europe, is prepositioning for a sector-by-sector severely discounted manufacturing operation.

The goal is to secure purchase contracts at prices that simply cannot be ignored given the scale of the increase in profit margin being offered. This is not a black-market operation per se’, this is a dark market strategic play with massive financial incentives for aligning. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer have begun meetings in Geneva with a Chinese delegation led by Vice Premier He Lifeng. A motorcade of black cars and vans was seen coming and going from the home of the Swiss ambassador to the United Nations. Talks between the U.S. and China are being moderated/facilitated by the Swiss (think finance sector motive) and taking place in the 18th-century “Villa Saladin” overlooking Lake Geneva. The optics of the discussion are grand; the estate was given to the Swiss in 1973.

Playing the role of Panda, Mrs Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center, said it is the first time Lifeng and Bessent have talked. However, given the position of President Trump comfortably willing to wait-out the dragon thrashing, panda Sun doubts the Geneva meeting will produce any substantive results.

BEIJING (Reuters) -“China’s factory-gate prices posted the steepest drop in six months in April while consumer prices fell for a third month, underlining the need for more stimulus as policymakers grapple with the economic toll from a trade war with the United States. A prolonged housing market downturn, high household debt and job insecurity have hampered investment and consumer spending, keeping deflationary pressures alive. Now, the economy is also facing increasing external risks from trade barriers. […] “Even if China and the U.S. can make progress and cut tariffs in trade negotiations, tariffs are unlikely to go back to the level before April,” Zhang added. “More proactive fiscal policy is necessary to boost domestic demand and address the deflation problem.”

[…] The Chinese government is implementing a wide range of measures to stimulate consumption across different sectors and last week announced a raft of stimulus measures, including interest rate cuts and a major injection of liquidity. As the trade war between the world’s two largest economies weighs on exports, China’s retail giants, including JD.com and Alibaba-owned Freshippo, have initiated measures to help exporters pivot to the domestic market. That could further depress prices as business and consumer confidence remain subdued due to the uncertain outlook. (read more)”

Beijing does have a consumption base within China; however, that consumption is dependent on income. If the Chinese factory workers are not working, they do not have income to spend; the proverbial catch-22. Hence, the continued manufacturing, shipping and inventory buildup being described as arriving in ASEAN nations (Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, etc.). I suspect we are about to witness the largest global dumping operation in the history of consumer goods.

https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status/1921510619410223447

Read more …

As per today.

• Trump Announces Order To Reduce Prescription Drug Prices By Up To 80% (ZH)

President Donald Trump announced late on May 11 that he would sign an executive order which would reduce prescription drug prices in the US by 30% to 80% “almost immediately” while also raising drug prices “rise throughout the World in order to equalize and, for the first time in many years, bring FAIRNESS TO AMERICA!” To achieve that, Trump would institute what he called a most-favored nation policy “whereby the United States will pay the same price as the Nation that pays the lowest price anywhere in the World.” Healthcare costs in the US “will be reduced by numbers never even thought of before,” he said. Trump’s Truth Social post, which was preceded by an earlier one that promised as one of “most important and impactful” statements he has ever issued, didn’t detail how the order would work.

He also didn’t specify potential limits on the policy, such as whether it would apply only to government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, if it would be limited to certain drugs or categories of drugs or if the White House sees a way to apply this more broadly. Asian pharmaceutical companies fell in early Monday trading. Japanese drugmaker Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. dropped as much as 7.2%, the most in a month, with peers Daiichi Sankyo and Takeda Pharmaceuticals losing around 5%. In South Korea, SK Biopharmaceuticals Co., Celltrion Inc. and Samsung Biologics Co. all fell over 3%. Americans pay the most in the world for medicines, fueling innovation and driving the growth of the pharmaceutical industry. Drugmakers have said revamping the system will slash revenue and stifle the development of breakthrough therapies that have the potential to lengthen and improve lives.

Trump cited the industry’s argument, but said it meant that “the ‘suckers’ of America” ended up bearing those costs “for no reason whatsoever.” As Bloomberg notes, the US government already negotiates prices for some of the highest-cost medicines used in Medicare health insurance under the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2022 under former President Joe Biden, with more slated to be added every year. The first two rounds of drug price negotiations haven’t included physician-administered drugs, but the next round might. Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman suggested Trump might have been inspired by an idea he floated on X in March, when he said the best way to reduce US drug prices “is to make it illegal for drug companies to sell the same drugs abroad for lower prices than they sell them for here.”

In his first term, Trump proposed a Medicare pilot program for drugs with no low-cost generic competition that are given in doctor’s offices, saying he wanted to bring prices in line with countries like France and Japan where they cost dramatically less. That plan, which would have phased in over three years, aimed to ensure Medicare paid the lowest price offered to a group of 22 nations. The effort was struck down in federal court after drug companies challenged it, claiming the administration hadn’t properly carried out the rulemaking process. The Biden administration didn’t appeal that finding, and instead pursued legislation that led to the Inflation Reduction Act.

Read more …

““The moment Russia agrees to a 30-day ceasefire, thousands of European troops will pour into Ukraine..”

• Scott Ritter: Putin’s Peace Talks Force Zelensky to Put Up or Shut Up (Sp.)

President Putin has announced Russia’s readiness for “direct talks” with Ukraine in Istanbul on May 15, “without preconditions” and aimed at eliminating “the root causes of the conflict.” Sputnik asked prolific military and geopolitical affairs observer Scott Ritter what the proposal means for Zelensky and his Western sponsors. “This is a brilliant act of diplomatic and political strategy by Vladimir Putin,” the former US Marine Corps intelligence officer told Sputnik, commenting on the Russian proposal. “Now Russia has the initiative and Russia has the moral high ground. There will be no more talk about 30-day artificial ceasefires. Ukraine either has to put up or shut up,” Ritter said. The same goes for Ukraine’s Western sponsors, which have up to now been able to define and control the narrative on a diplomatic resolution to the crisis with the 30-day ceasefire demands.

With his proposal, Putin managed to “get inside” the West’s decision-making cycle, forcing them to react, and putting him “in control” of the narrative. “One of the big problems” Zelensky will face is his self-imposed ban on direct negotiations with Russia, which Zelensky cannot and will not change, and which his Western sponsors prefer not to talk about. Should Zelensky reject Russia’s new Istanbul talks offer, it will allow Putin to “expose the hypocrisy of the Ukrainian government, expose the hypocrisy of the West, and expose, frankly speaking, the inefficiency of the United States or lack of seriousness of the United States when it comes to finding a diplomatic outcome,” Ritter said.

Otherwise, Russia’s negotiations olive branch “cannot be undermined,” according to the observer, since they’re a continuation of the spring 2022 talks in Belarus and Istanbul, which successfully hammered out a draft peace deal before it was sabotaged by Boris Johnson and the West. In that sense, Putin is “putting forward a successful model of negotiation, which, had it been acted on back in March of 2022, there would be no special military operation today.” There is no circumstance under which Russia would accept Zelensky and Europe’s ’30-day ceasefire’ demands, Ritter says. “The moment Russia agrees to a 30-day ceasefire, thousands of European troops will pour into Ukraine…It would be suicide for Russia to agree to a 30-day ceasefire without addressing the root causes of the conflict, which is why Russia insists that first there be negotiations. Russia is actually looking at a path of genuine peace to solve the problem so that when this war ends, there won’t be another war in five, ten, twenty years,” he emphasized.

At the same time, Ritter says, it’s important to keep in mind that the “tragic reality” of the Ukrainian crisis is that Ukraine is not a sovereign state, but “a tool being used by NATO, by Europe, by the United States to weaken Russia.” “That’s what this conflict has always been about…Consequently, we need to understand that no one, neither Europe, the US or Ukraine are looking for actual peace,” but rather seek a temporary deal that would allow Ukraine to regroup militarily, economically and politically to continue the conflict,” the observer said.

Read more …

First thing Zelensky does is insult Putin. He thinks Trump will follow.

• Ukraine Should Agree To Putin’s Proposal of Talks ‘Immediately’ – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has urged Ukraine to “immediately” agree to the proposal of direct unconditional talks put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier on Sunday.Writing on Truth Social, Trump suggested the proposed direct negotiations would, at least, help to clarify the positions of the sides of the conflict and show “whether or not a deal is possible.” “President Putin of Russia doesn’t want to have a Cease Fire Agreement with Ukraine, but rather wants to meet on Thursday, in Turkey, to negotiate a possible end to the BLOODBATH. Ukraine should agree to this, IMMEDIATELY,” the US leader wrote.If it becomes clear that reaching a deal is not possible “European leaders, and the US, will know where everything stands, and can proceed accordingly,” Trump stated. “I’m starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin,” he added.

Earlier in the day, the Russian president proposed that “the Kiev authorities resume the negotiations they interrupted in 2022” without any preconditions on May 15 in Istanbul. The peace settlement process must start with talks, which could ultimately yield “some kind of new truce and a new ceasefire,” Putin added. “We are set on serious negotiations with Ukraine. Their aim is to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and to achieve a long-term lasting peace for a historical perspective,” the president stressed. The Russian offer has been criticized by Kiev and its Western backers, who demand the talks be preceded by the establishment of at least a 30-day truce. This stance was reiterated by Vladimir Zelensky minutes after Trump made his remarks. The Ukrainian leader demanded a truce be announced on Monday.

“We await a full and lasting ceasefire, starting from tomorrow, to provide the necessary basis for diplomacy. There is no point in prolonging the killings. And I will be waiting for Putin in Türkiye on Thursday. Personally. I hope that this time the Russians will not look for excuses,” Zelensky wrote on X. In 2022, Zelensky explicitly prohibited engaging in any negotiations with Russia as long as Putin is in power. While the ban remains in place, Zelensky has somewhat softened his position as of late, claiming it actually applied to everyone in Ukraine except himself.

Read more …

Trump’s advisors, like Vance’s, don’t appear to tell him the whole story. He would need a Putin meeting for that.

• Trump Responds Favorably To Putin Peace Talks Proposal (RT)

US President Donald Trump has expressed support for his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin’s proposal to resume direct peace talks with Ukraine, which have been on hold since 2022. Putin earlier suggested restarting negotiations in Istanbul, Türkiye next week. Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday to praise what he called “a potentially great day for Russia and Ukraine! Think of the hundreds of thousands of lives that will be saved as this never ending ‘bloodbath’ hopefully comes to an end.” The US, he added, “wants to focus, instead, on Rebuilding and Trade. A BIG week upcoming!” Putin previously proposed resuming direct negotiations with Ukraine on May 15 in Istanbul, where talks were last held in 2022.

Moscow said that while the sides were making progress toward peace at the time and had reached a preliminary draft agreement, the process was derailed by then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who advised Kiev to “keep fighting.” Johnson has denied the claim. ”We propose resuming talks without any preconditions,” Putin said, stressing that Russia has never refused dialogue. He added that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has expressed his readiness to facilitate the meeting. Responding to the Russian leader’s new proposal, French President Emmanuel Macron called it “a first step, but not enough” to ensure a path to peace. Putin’s remarks came after the leaders of Ukraine, France, Germany, Poland, the UK, and the EU floated a proposal for a 30-day “full and unconditional” ceasefire, which they claimed would “create room for diplomacy,” adding that the US supports the initiative.

Several European leaders also threatened to impose new sanctions on Russia if it rejects the ceasefire. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said Russia needs to “think about” the ceasefire proposal. He added that while Putin supports the idea of a ceasefire “in general,” “there are lots of questions” yet to be resolved. Moscow previously expressed concern that Ukraine could use a pause in the fighting to regroup its battered and exhausted troops while continuing forced mobilization. Russia has also insisted that Western arms shipments must be halted during a ceasefire. Regarding the threat of new sanctions from EU nations, Peskov said Russia is “resistant to any kind of pressure.”

Read more …

What can I say? I’m a sucker for optimism and peace. But this peace thing is only possible if they keep Ukraine and Europe away from the table.

• Putin, Trump, Erdogan Can Steer Ukraine Conflict to Peace – Sachs (Sp.)

The leaders of the United States, Turkiye, and Russia will be able to navigate Ukraine into a peace settlement, renowned American economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs told RIA Novosti. “These are very positive developments … I believe that Presidents Putin, Trump, and Erdogan can steer the conflict to a peace agreement,” Sachs replied when asked for his view of the latest announcements on the issue of Ukraine. “I very much hope for this outcome.” On Sunday, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to meet President Putin in Turkiye on May 15, an hour after US President Donald Trump urged Ukraine to immediately accept Russian President Vladimir Putin for talks in Istanbul.

Professor Sachs also noted that President Trump had a ‘far more accurate’ understanding of the Ukrainian conflict than his predecessor Joe Biden did, noting that the conflict could have ended in April 2022, but Biden had told Ukraine to “fight on.” The economist said he was, therefore, “cautiously optimistic,” adding that Trump wanted the war to stop the conflict, which would be in the best interest of the US, Europe, Russia, and Ukraine. Putin suggested overnight that Kiev and Moscow resume direct talks without any preconditions in Istanbul on May 15 to address the root causes of the conflict in Ukraine.

Read more …

Ukraine and Europe will label this “pre-conditions.”

• Moscow Outlines Basis For Peace Negotiations With Kiev (RT)

Peace negotiations with Ukraine should consider both the current realities on the ground and the groundwork laid during the 2022 Istanbul talks, an aide to the Russian president, Yury Ushakov, has said. He made the remarks after Russian President Vladimir Putin offered Kiev the opportunity to resume direct talks “without any preconditions.” Speaking in the early hours of Sunday, Putin proposed a new round of talks that would take place on May 15 in Istanbul. Ushakov told Russia’s Channel 1 that any peace talks with Ukraine should take into account the points that were worked out by the sides during the 2022 negotiations, which Kiev unilaterally walked away from. “The real situation” on the ground should “obviously” be considered as well, he added.

Also on Sunday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that the “objectives of negotiations are clear – to eliminate the root causes of the conflict” and to protect Russian interests. He went on to suggest that Ukraine is not really independent, and much would depend on the decisions of its Western backers. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has confirmed that his country is ready to host talks between Moscow and Kiev. In a televised address, Putin stressed that Moscow is “set on serious negotiations with Ukraine,” and is seeking a “long-term, sustainable peace” that addresses the root causes of the conflict. He did not rule out that the talks, if resumed, could yield “a new ceasefire” honored by both sides, which could pave the way to a comprehensive peace settlement.

”The decision is now up to the Ukrainian authorities and their supervisors,” the Russian president said. In 2022, Moscow and Kiev reached a draft peace deal in Istanbul, in which Ukraine reportedly agreed to neutrality and limitations on its armed forces, while Russia offered the withdrawal of its troops and security guarantees. However, Kiev abruptly walked away from the talks – a move which Russian officials claim was encouraged by then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is said to have urged Kiev to “just continue fighting.” In November 2023, David Arakhamia, an MP allied with Vladimir Zelensky and who led the Ukrainian delegation, confirmed that this was the case. Johnson, however, has denied the allegations.

Read more …

Russia will not agree to a ceasefire without negotiations first.

• Zelensky Wants Ceasefire To Rearm Military – Senior Russian Diplomat (RT)

Kiev’s response to Russia’s offer of unconditional peace talks shows that Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky wants to use it to rearm and regroup the country’s military, Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s ambassador-at-large, has said. On Saturday night, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered Kiev the opportunity to restart direct negotiations in Istanbul, which it unilaterally walked away from in 2022. Russia is ready to return to the negotiating table without any preconditions, he said. Zelensky responded by demanding that Russia first agree to a 30-day ceasefire starting on May 12. “Is this what agreeing to start negotiations without conditions looks like?!” Miroshnik, who is tasked with investigating the Ukrainian military’s alleged war crimes, wrote in a post on Telegram on Sunday. Zelensky is essentially “setting preconditions” for unconditional peace talks, he added.

Earlier on Sunday, Zelensky wrote on Telegram: “We expect Russia to confirm a ceasefire – full, lasting, and reliable – starting tomorrow, May 12, and Ukraine is ready to meet.”After meeting with European leaders in Kiev on Saturday, Zelensky demanded that Russia agree to a 30-day ceasefire. The Kremlin rejected what it described as external pressure surrounding the proposed truce. Moscow has also warned that a temporary pause in the fighting could be used by Kiev to regroup and strengthen its military.

Russia has said it is ready for peace talks at any time, and seeks a lasting resolution to the conflict that addresses the root causes. On Saturday night, Putin stated that Kiev has violated three ceasefires offered by Moscow: A 30-day US-brokered moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure which expired last month, an Easter ceasefire, and a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire. He added that Ukraine tried to intimidate foreign leaders who attended the May 9 Victory Day celebrations in Moscow.

Read more …

Get Zelensky out of the picture. All he wants is to make peace impossible. There’s always another demand.

• Zelensky Responds To Putin’s Peace Talks Proposal (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has responded to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal for direct peace talks by reiterating his demand that any engagement must be preceded by a comprehensive ceasefire. Moscow, however, has said the settlement process must begin with talks, possibly followed by a ceasefire – not the other way around. On Sunday, Putin proposed resuming direct negotiations with Ukraine on May 15 in Istanbul, Türkiye “without any preconditions.” He noted that Russia has never refused dialogue and expressed hope that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would facilitate the meeting. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described Putin’s proposal as “a serious offer” aimed at achieving a lasting peace through meaningful negotiations.

Responding to the offer, Zelensky took to Telegram, saying: “It is a good sign that the Russians are finally thinking about ending the war. Everyone in the world has been waiting for this for a long time. And the very first step in actually ending any war is a ceasefire.” “We expect Russia to confirm a ceasefire – full, lasting, and reliable – starting tomorrow, May 12, and Ukraine is ready to meet,” he added. Andrey Yermak, the head of Zelensky’s office, echoed his remarks, stating, “First, a 30-day ceasefire, then everything else. Russia must not mask the desire to continue the war under verbal constructions.” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed Kiev’s response, saying: “Judging by the reaction… they didn’t read the transcript of the Russian president’s statement very carefully, nor the hundreds of comments from global political figures and media publications supporting it.”

Putin’s proposal is “absolutely clear,” Zakharova stressed. “First, negotiations about the root causes [of the conflict], and then we can talk about a ceasefire.” This came after leaders from France, Germany, Poland, the UK, and EU proposed a “full and unconditional” 30-day ceasefire, arguing that this would “create room for diplomacy,” while noting that the US has expressed support for the initiative. According to Peskov, Putin supports the idea of a ceasefire “in general,” but “there are lots of questions” that remain unresolved. Moscow previously expressed concern that a halt in the fighting would allow Kiev to regroup its battered troops. It has also insisted that all Western arms shipments to Ukraine must be suspended for the duration of the ceasefire.

Read more …

Weird thing to say:

“It is a first step, but it is not enough… It’s a way of not responding. We must not give up,” Macron stated, claiming that Putin’s offer is a delaying tactic. “It shows that he is looking for a way out, but he still wants to buy time.”

• Macron Lukewarm On Putin Peace Talks Offer (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron has downplayed Russia’s proposal to restart direct peace talks with Ukraine, saying it is “a first step,” but not enough. He made the remarks to reporters on Sunday, while returning from a trip to Ukraine. Earlier in the day, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered Kiev the opportunity to restart direct negotiations, which have been on hold since 2022, “without any preconditions.” Putin stressed that Moscow is ready to start “without delay,” and suggested meeting on May 15 in Istanbul, Türkiye. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has confirmed that his country is ready to host the talks, telling Macron in a phone call that this could be “a historic turning point.” Macron, however, insisted that the process should start with a “full and unconditional” 30-day ceasefire, referring to a proposal made by the leaders of Ukraine, the UK, and EU the day before, and which is reportedly supported by the US.

“It is a first step, but it is not enough… It’s a way of not responding. We must not give up,” Macron stated, claiming that Putin’s offer is a delaying tactic. “It shows that he is looking for a way out, but he still wants to buy time.”

Macron also claimed that “an unconditional ceasefire is not preceded by negotiations, by definition.” “We must stand firm with the Americans to say that the ceasefire is unconditional and then we can discuss the rest,” he said. US President Donald Trump has welcomed Putin’s proposal, writing on Truth Social hours after the announcement that this is “a potentially great day for Russia and Ukraine,” with “a BIG week upcoming!” Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky said Putin’s proposal is a “positive sign” and that he is “ready to meet” for talks. He insisted, however, that the first step should be a ceasefire, which he suggested should begin on May 12.

Moscow previously warned that Ukraine could use a prolonged pause in the fighting without a formal agreement to regroup and rearm. In his address, Putin said Kiev has violated three ceasefires proposed by Moscow: A 30-day US-brokered halt on strikes against energy infrastructure that expired last month, an unconditional Easter truce, and a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire. Istanbul hosted the last direct Russia-Ukraine peace talks in 2022, shortly after the escalation of the conflict. Moscow said that while the sides were making progress at the time and had worked out a preliminary peace treaty, the process was derailed by Kiev’s Western backers. The agreement eventually fell through, and Zelensky later issued a decree banning peace talks with Putin.

Read more …

From inside the EU. He must be popular.

• Slovakia’s Fico Torches West’s Peace Hypocrisy: They Want Endless War (Sp.)

President Vladimir Putin suggested on Saturday night that Russia and Ukraine resume direct talks without any preconditions in Istanbul on May 15. Robert Fico has blasted the West’s pushback against direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. “It is extremely important for many Western countries to keep this war going,” the Slovak prime minister said at a press conference upon completing his visit to Russia. Still, he remained cautiously optimistic, saying: “I believe that this point of view will change, I will remind you again that this is a matter for Ukraine and Russia, if they are interested in negotiating, let them do so.” But don’t forget who sabotaged such talks back in 2022, he noted, in an apparent reference to Ukraine and its handlers.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin proposed peace talks with Ukraine on May 15 without any preconditions. He did not rule out the possibility of reaching a ceasefire during such talks, adding that it was up to Ukraine and its Western backers to respond. While US President Donald Trump called Putin’s offer “potentially great day for Russia and Ukraine,” and promised to continue working with both sides, Emmanuel Macron was not at all enthusiastic. Vladimir Putin’s proposal is “a first step, but not enough,” Macron said on Sunday. “An unconditional ceasefire is not preceded by negotiations,” the French president told reporters on his return from Ukraine.

Read more …

“Since returning to office in January, US President Donald Trump has not authorized new military aid for Ukraine. Shipments previously approved under former President Joe Biden have been nearly exhausted..”

• US Greenlights Long-Range Missile Transfer To Ukraine – NYT (RT)

The US has approved the transfer of 100 Patriot air-defense missiles and 125 long-range artillery rockets from German stockpiles to Ukraine, the New York Times reported on Friday, citing a congressional official. Under US export rules, American-made systems cannot be re-exported without prior approval from Washington. The move follows Russia’s declaration of a 72-hour unilateral ceasefire from the start of May 8 to the end of May 10 to mark Victory Day, as well as President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to hold direct peace talks in Istanbul on May 15. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has long advocated for long-range missiles and Patriot systems. He recently stated that Kiev is prepared to spend $30-50 billion on US weapons or obtain production licenses, and has instructed his government to pursue a Patriot deal. Each unit costs over $1 billion and requires around 90 personnel to operate.

Since returning to office in January, US President Donald Trump has not authorized new military aid for Ukraine. Shipments previously approved under former President Joe Biden have been nearly exhausted. According to the New York Times, the Trump administration has shown little interest in pursuing further assistance, instead urging European NATO allies to take on a greater share of the burden in supporting Ukraine. On Thursday, the Ukrainian parliament ratified a landmark agreement with the US that grants Washington preferential access to critical natural resources, including rare-earth elements. Originally signed in April, the deal outlines the creation of a joint investment fund to support Ukraine’s economic recovery. While it does not include formal security assurances, Kiev views the agreement as a pathway to deeper cooperation with the US and potential future military support.

“This gives us hope,” Egor Chernev, the deputy chair of Ukraine’s parliamentary defense committee, said, as quoted by the New York Times. He noted that Ukrainian forces are running low on long-range missiles, artillery, and ballistic air defense systems, the majority of which are produced in the US. In April, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Berlin could not immediately send more Patriot systems due to supply issues. However, he confirmed plans to deliver four German-made IRIS-T SLM systems and 30 additional missiles. Germany has also sent 60 mine-resistant vehicles, 50,000 artillery shells, and one IRIS-T interceptor. Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government has decided to stop publishing shipment details, aiming to establish “strategic ambiguity.”

Russia says it remains open to dialogue but insists that halting Western arms shipments is a prerequisite for any lasting ceasefire. Kiev has repeatedly called for a 30-day truce in recent months, describing it as critical to launching diplomatic efforts. Moscow has pushed back against the proposal, arguing that a pause would largely benefit Ukraine by giving its forces time to regroup and replenish their stockpiles.

Read more …

“Washington’s failure to contain the Yemeni threat in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, and the Gulf of Aden stands as a stark indictment of its military planning..”

• US Ceasefire In Yemen: Retreat Masquerading As Restraint (Iskandar)

In a major recalibration of its year-long Red Sea military campaign, the US has agreed to a ceasefire with Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces, brokered by Oman. After months of escalating attacks under the guise of “protecting international shipping,” Washington now finds itself calling time on a conflict it launched – but failed to control. While Yemen’s leaders stress that operations in support of Gaza will persist, the US pivot signals more than de-escalation: It is a tacit admission that its campaign has collapsed under pressure, unable to achieve even its most basic strategic goals. With over a thousand airstrikes launched since March 2024, Washington’s failure to contain the Yemeni threat in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, and the Gulf of Aden stands as a stark indictment of its military planning. The war devolved into a costly, high-stakes exercise in attrition – one Yemen emerged from stronger, not weaker.

From its inception, the US-led campaign ‘Prosperity Guardian’ lacked clarity. The mission to “protect shipping lanes” quickly became an open-ended confrontation with no political roadmap. American officials misread both the battlefield and Yemen’s resilience. Despite the might of its airpower, Washington failed to dent Sanaa’s capacity or will to fight. Instead, the bombardment accelerated Yemen’s military innovation, forcing Washington into a deterrence game it could not win. Yemen’s unconventional warfare style, grounded in its topography and culture, posed immense challenges. Leaders operated from mountainous terrain fortified by tunnel systems, well beyond the reach of satellite surveillance. The US had little intelligence penetration into Yemen’s military hierarchy and no functioning target bank. Sanaa’s leadership, experienced from years of prior war against the Saudi and UAE-led coalition and its proxies, held the advantage.

Speaking to The Cradle, Colonel Rashad al-Wutayri lists five key reasons for the campaign’s failure. First, Yemen’s use of low-cost, high-impact weapons – ballistic missiles and drones – pierced even US carrier strike groups. Second, the campaign failed to protect Israeli or allied shipping. Third, Ansarallah exposed Israeli-American spy networks and clung to its demands: Namely, an end to the war on Gaza. Fourth, apart from Bahrain, Washington’s Arab allies declined to join the US-led coalition. Fifth, the financial cost spiraled, with the US spending millions on interceptors to counter drones built for mere thousands. Washington’s diplomatic push to build a regional anti-Yemen coalition fell flat. Persian Gulf states, still stung from their own failures in Yemen, wisely kept their distance. Saudi Arabia refused to be drawn back into a war it has been trying to exit since 2022. The UAE, meanwhile, limited its support to logistics. Egypt stayed silent, unwilling to be sucked into another regional escalation.

This reticence was not without reason. Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi issued direct warnings to neighboring countries: Any cooperation with the US – via bases or troops – would bring immediate retaliation. The threat worked. When Washington explored the idea of a ground assault using US special forces and Persian Gulf-backed militias, the plan quickly collapsed. Yemen’s terrain, its entrenched resistance, and the bitter legacy of previous Saudi-Emirati attempts made such a venture untenable. Political analyst Abdulaziz Abu Talib tells The Cradle that Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have internalized the cost of further escalation. While both continue to bankroll proxy militias, they are steering clear of overt military entanglement. Yemen’s ability to withstand this trilateral aggression – and to land blows on US and Israeli interests – further eroded faith in Washington’s protective umbrella.

Bombs, billions, and blunders Between March 2024 and April 2025, the US launched over 1,000 airstrikes on Yemen. Yet, rather than break its adversary, the campaign emboldened it. In retaliation, Yemen escalated steadily – from targeting Israeli vessels in November 2023, to US and UK ships by January, the Indian Ocean by March, and the Mediterranean by May. By July, Ansarallah struck Tel Aviv with hypersonic missiles. A direct hit on Ben Gurion Airport followed, redrawing the region’s military balance. The costs piled up. In the first three weeks alone, the US burned through $1 billion. Weapons like Tomahawk and JASSM missiles – costing millions apiece – were deployed against drones worth a few thousand dollars. Yemen’s own achievements mounted: 17 MQ-9 Reaper drones shot down, two $60 million F-18 fighters lost in just over a week, and a declared aerial blockade of Israel. Wutayri highlights that Yemen developed its arsenal domestically, without foreign technical assistance. That included the hypersonic missiles that bypassed Israeli and US air defenses, and drones capable of striking both military and commercial ships. Even as Washington intensified its bombardment, Yemen’s operational tempo and range only grew.

Back in Washington, the cracks were showing. The Pentagon quietly expanded military commanders’ autonomy to strike targets without White House clearance – an effort to shield the administration from political fallout. But the costs, both financial and reputational, were impossible to ignore. US media outlets began questioning the purpose and direction of the campaign. Public patience waned. There were calls for countries benefiting from Red Sea trade – namely Persian Gulf monarchies – to shoulder the burden of maritime security. Wutayri says the US suffered further humiliation: a destroyer and three supply ships were sunk, and both the USS Abraham Lincoln and Harry S. Truman aircraft carriers were targeted.

Despite spending another $500 million on interceptors, the results were negligible. The image of US warplanes crashing into the sea, and of exhausted troops – some 7,000 deployed – unable to break Yemen’s resolve, dented American prestige. More than just a response to Red Sea attacks, the campaign was part of Washington’s broader effort to counter China’s regional influence, particularly Yemen’s emerging Belt and Road links. But the military track backfired, hardening local resistance and undermining US credibility. Abu Talib notes that even stealth aircraft and strategic bombers failed to achieve deterrence. The Trump administration faced two options: retreat under the weight of defeat, or engage in talks under Ansarallah’s terms – chief among them an end to the Gaza war.

Read more …

“If that pattern continues for the next four years, and Trump appoints the average number of judges (as measured by the past several presidencies), he will have appointed more than 400 judges during his two terms, more than any president in history.”

• The Judicial Appointment Train Is Leaving the Station (Jipping)

President Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate Whitney Hermandorfer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. She will be Trump’s first judicial nomination of his second term and will replace Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, appointed in September 2010 by President Barack Obama. Congress can use its legislative authority under Article I of the Constitution to create “Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” These include the U.S. Tax Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Judges on these courts serve for specific terms. In Article III, the Constitution itself created the Supreme Court and gave Congress authority to establish “inferior Courts.” These are the U.S. District Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, and U.S. Court of International Trade.

Together, these Article III courts exercise the “judicial Power of the United States.” Article III judges serve during “good Behaviour,” or until they are removed by impeachment. The Heritage Foundation’s Judicial Appointment Tracker follows the appointment process for Article III judges under Trump and under the previous seven presidents. The judicial appointment situation is different from when Trump first took office, in 2017. Republicans had controlled the Senate during Obama’s last two years in office and confirmed 22 judges in two years, less than one-fourth the average. Those 22 judges constituted just 2.6% of the judiciary, the lowest percentage appointed in a two-year Congress since 1789. As a result, 106 positions on federal district and appeals courts were vacant when Trump took office and began making nominations in March 2017.

The opposite scenario exists today. Democrats controlled the Senate during President Joe Biden’s last two years and confirmed 139 judges, the third-highest total in American history. As a result, just 5.3% of the judiciary is currently vacant, the lowest percentage during a new presidency in more than 40 years. Since 1980, an average of 45 judicial positions become vacant each year, three-fourths of which resulted from the incumbents’ taking “senior status,” remaining a federal judge with a reduced caseload but vacating his or her seat for a new appointment. If that pattern continues for the next four years, and Trump appoints the average number of judges (as measured by the past several presidencies), he will have appointed more than 400 judges during his two terms, more than any president in history.

If Hermandorfer’s nomination is any indication, Trump will take the same approach, and use the same priorities and criteria, to judicial appointments as he did in his first term. She received her law degree from George Washington University Law School, where she was editor in chief of the law review, and has clerked for judges at all three levels of the federal judiciary: Richard Leon on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court; and Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett. During her stint in private practice at Williams & Connelly, the Legal 500 named her a “rising star” in the appellate category. She is now the director of the Strategic Litigation Unit in the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General.

As expected, liberal groups immediately attacked Hermandorfer’s nomination as “appalling” and as a signal of a “dangerous direction for the judiciary.” As they no doubt will regarding each of Trump’s judicial nominations, they claim that the president “seeks to stack the judiciary with those who will do his bidding.” These are the same groups that urged incoming President Biden to appoint judges who would further his political agenda and supported “packing” the Supreme Court with justices who would do the same. Expect more of this mantra, with the name of the current nominee cut and pasted, in the months ahead.

Read more …

They now changed the headline to “Bernie Sanders Is a Fraud”.

• Dems Aren’t ‘Fighting Oligarchy’, They Are the Oligarchy (Stepman)

Some people are more equal than others it seems according to the Senate’s most prominent avowed socialist. Sorry for using an overused “Animal Farm” reference, but in this case it was too on point to pass up. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has been widely and rightly mocked for his hilariously hypocritical response to Fox News’ Bret Baier on Wednesday night. Baier asked Sanders why he chartered private jets to travel the country on his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with fellow socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-NY. According to The Washington Free Beacon, Sanders spent $221,000 on chartered private jets in the first quarter of 2025. Sanders refused to apologize for the lavish—and not incidentally, carbon-spewing—travel, snapping back at Baier, “You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United … while 30,000 people are waiting?”

Sanders pointed out that President Donald Trump flies in private jets, but since when did Trump call himself a democratic socialist? This revealing moment shouldn’t be a surprise. Sanders has moved his targets in the past to conform to his own personal circumstances. He used to rail against the “millionaires and the billionaires,” but it’s mostly just billionaires these days now that he’s a millionaire himself. Being a socialist politician who has never held a real job sure pays off, right? Yes, the “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies are drawing good-sized crowds. But besides the rank hypocrisy, there is something more deeply fraudulent about Sanders’ tour with AOC. It’s all a sham. I don’t doubt Sanders is a true-believing socialist. He spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union after all. What’s a sham is the idea that Democrats are suddenly going to go all in for economic leveling or become the party of the “working man.”

That version of the Democratic Party fully died in the age of Obama. The New Deal coalition is dead. What Democrats represent now are elite institutions, Ivy League schools, law firms, government bureaucracies, and powerful NGOs. What animates their party is cultural issues, LGBTQ, DEI, open borders, and the intolerant cult of “tolerance.” That and resistance to all things Trump. It couldn’t be clearer to me that this was the direction of the Left when I attended a socialism conference back in 2019. Yes, they went through the rote message of economic leveling that they’ve always been at least nominally for. But all the fire and passion was for transgenderism and the breakdown of “oppressive” family structures. Sanders may try to portray himself as an outsider, an independent, but he’s always ultimately been a party man. Years ago, believe it or not, he said that open borders was a right-wing idea.

That version of Bernie Sanders is long gone. Now, he toes the line. Whatever sideshow Sanders puts on to rally the masses, it has nothing to do with the direction of the Democratic Party or the broader Left. Despite the fact that Democrats have hit their lowest poll numbers since polling on party popularity began, they’ve shown few signs of willingness to change on substance at all. Some cleverer Democrat politicians have rhetorically tacked Right or to the center. Others have tried to recapture their disintegrating working-class base with socialist rhetoric. But it’s all a mirage. The party is just as woke as ever. They are simply adjusting to a world in which their immense institutional advantage is crumbling, and they actually have to make their case to an American people who’ve become fatigued by the post 2020 insanity.

Read more …

And so a meme was born. “..perhaps it really was just a ‘handkerchief’ and a ‘toothpick.’

• French Media Quash Claims Macron, Merz & Starmer Hid Cocaine On Train (ZH)

French media are on the defensive after journalists unexpectedly entered a train carriage carrying French President Emmanuel Macron, along with the German and British Prime Ministers, en route to Kyiv on Friday, which sparked a firestorm on social media with allegations of cocaine use by the top leaders. “They [social media users] cite videos that allegedly show Emmanuel Macron discreetly hiding a strange white bag on the table,” the French daily newspaper Libération said, adding, “And according to these accounts, Friedrich Merz even had a straw to use to take drugs. These conspiracy accusations fit with the narrative that Western elites are depraved and approach war unconsciously.” When reporters entered the room, Macron was meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on a train ride from Poland to Ukraine.

Libération rushed to the defense of Macron and the Western leaders: “Several internet users, sharing posts favorable to Vladimir Putin, have claimed that the three men had used cocaine together. “Coke will decide World War III,” one of them feigned concern.” Libération even suggested: “High-quality photographs and videos, such as those taken by the AFP or AP news agencies , show that the mysterious bag of white powder is actually a handkerchief rolled into a ball that was placed on the table before Keir Starmer arrived and the cameras entered the booth, where Macron and Merz were already seated. The straw looks more like a stirrer or a toothpick, which the German chancellor is said to have been fiddling with. This explains why the two leaders do not want these objects immortalized in the images of the meeting.”

Maybe Libération’s defense of Macron and the other Western leaders is accurate — perhaps it really was just a ‘handkerchief’ and a ‘toothpick.’ But the real red flag is the leaders’ abrupt and suspicious behavior as they scrambled to cover up whatever was on the table when journalists unexpectedly entered the train carriage. Cocaine allegations come as no surprise, considering the leaders were inbound to visit this guy… [..] Coaine or no cocaine. The optics here are not good.

https://twitter.com/angeloinchina/status/1921551299222339977

Read more …

The Goal Is Not Justice – It’s Delay.

• Trump’s ‘Nuclear’ Deportation Options (Jim Rickards)

The battle between the Trump administration and the federal courts on the topic of deportation is intensifying. The outlines are clear. Biden and his corrupt cronies left the U.S. southern border wide open for four years. Estimates vary but it’s likely 8 million illegal aliens crossed the border. But the actual number could be 10 million or higher. Of course, some just came for a better opportunity, but many were murderers, terrorists, rapists, sex traffickers, Chinese spies and every sort of violent low life you can imagine.It’s nearly impossible to find and deport 8 million people. Biden made sure of that by ignoring the procedures for tracking and documenting the alien invasion. Trump’s policy of “remain in Mexico” while immigration cases were pending was abandoned by Biden. Many of the illegals got court dates, but those were scheduled years in advance. The expectation was that the court notices would be thrown in the trash, the illegals would not show up in court, and no enforcement action would be conducted.

Trump has launched a major deportation effort despite these handicaps. In any situation where you can accomplish part of the task but not all, the first move is to prioritize elements so you can devote resources to the best effect. Trump has done that also. He has prioritized the worst of the worst – criminals and terrorists – for early deportation. That reduces crime and violence in the U.S. and gives Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a chance to hone their techniques for the larger task ahead. Now, Trump has encountered a new obstacle. It’s not the illegals, the Democrats or the media. It’s the federal court system, especially rogue district court judges appointed by Biden and Obama. To be clear, the rogue judges don’t work in a vacuum. The plaintiffs are hand selected to create sympathy in the media (although there’s little sympathetic about a rapist) and are represented in court by lawyers backed by well-funded NGOs and activist organizations.

It’s not as if the illegals have the resources to appeal cases to the Supreme Court on their own. They don’t need them. From Soros on down, the fight against deportation is well-funded and skillfully lawyered. The lawyers present everything the judges need to tear down Trump’s agenda. There are hundreds of cases involving thousands and potentially millions of illegal aliens now pending in the courts. Trump has been losing most of these cases at the district court level, but it’s reasonable to expect some success at the circuit court and Supreme Court levels. But that takes time. Rather than review the docket case-by-case and issue-by-issue, it may be useful to step back and look at the forest instead of the individual trees. The radical neo-Marxist lawyers don’t care about the individual defendants. They don’t care about blocking individual deportations. They don’t even care about the law. What’s going on is far more pernicious and damaging to Trump and the country.

There’s a lot of talk about the Constitution, but a pure illegal does not have full constitutional rights. The courts have afforded them some limited rights such as freedom from torture and freedom of religion. The difficulty with the pending Trump deportation cases is that radical lawyers are concocting status arguments that allow the illegals to upgrade their status. This legal upgrade can be based on asylum claims, pending immigration court dates, and some blanket grants for temporary residence. Some illegals are married to legals, etc. Once you’re in one or more of those categories as a plaintiff, you receive more rights including due process and habeas corpus, even if not full constitutional rights. Alexjandro Mayorkas knew what he was doing when he opened the border under Biden. He wanted the illegals to have a one-way ticket and made it extremely difficult to deport any.

Here’s the point. What the left is trying to do is to create a set of rulings that will force Trump to litigate every single case. No mass deportations. No deals with foreign countries to take plane loads of illegals for incarceration in local prisons. Instead, each case will be heard individually. Each claim will be raised in a separate proceeding. Each due process argument will be heard in a separate trial. This approach will do more than delay deportations. It will jam the court dockets. It will overwhelm the judicial branch. It will prevent the smooth functioning of a range of government functions. Now imagine this technique expanded beyond deportation. You can apply this court-jamming massive litigation approach to the closing of government agencies, the termination of government employees, the cuts in government spending and the entire Trump agenda. Don’t just litigate. Grind the entire system to a halt. That’s the plan.

Do individual legal victories in certain cases help Trump? Not necessarily. The activist lawyers and their armies of illegals just file a new lawsuit in a different jurisdiction with slightly varied facts and start the process all over again. Is there any end to it? One is for the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling that district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions, can only issue orders for the plaintiffs in the case and not the entire class of illegals, and that the courts have almost no jurisdiction over the conduct of foreign policy. Those rulings would empower Trump’s deportation programs. The second way is for Trump to ignore the courts and proceed as planned. Critics will scream this is “unconstitutional”, but it’s just as unconstitutional for courts to ignore their limitations and intrude on the power of the executive branch. It’s an outcome the courts will have brought upon themselves.

The third way is to abolish the district courts, or at least some of them. That’s not as radical as it sounds. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to structure the court system any way it likes with the exception of the Supreme Court. Congress created the district courts and Congress can abolish them as well. If one of those three paths is not taken, then the left wins. In that case, the country loses. We already have four Supreme Court votes to support Trump’s program (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh). It only takes one more vote to win. Roberts and Barrett are the two swing votes. Let’s hope they lean the right way when the crucial case arrives.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/NicHulscher/status/1921562436353618315

Kirsch

https://twitter.com/theepicmap/status/1921627284886245513

TSLA
https://twitter.com/ICannot_Enough/status/1921618218780708964

Tiger

Guitar

Family
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1921666652086694330

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle May 7 2025

May 072025
 
 May 7, 2025  Posted by at 9:30 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  64 Responses »


Felix Vallotton Verdun 1917

 

• Bessent Says US Is Negotiating With 17 Out of 18 Major Trade Partners (JTN)
• Bessent and USTR Greer Will Meet Chinese Trade Counterparts in Switzerland (CTH)
• Chinese Exporters Dodging US Tariffs – FT (RT)
• China May Cave to Trump on Tariffs Soon (Matt Margolis)
• The EU Zombie Uses Trump as Cover to Further Feed on Citizens (NC)
• The Death of Old Europe (von Hoffmeister)
• Canada’s War on… Canada (Solway)
• Canada: A Post-Election Autopsy (Solway)
• The Trump-Iran Deal, Explained (Victor Davis Hanson)
• $373M in DEI Funding at US Universities in Four Years (Salgado)
• OpenAI Blinks: Scraps For-Profit Plan After Outside Pressure (ZH)
• (None Dare Call It) Treason of the Judiciary (Miele)
• SCOTUS Rules On Trump’s Ban On Transgenders In The Military (Downey Jr)
• President Trump Sends Message of Support for Ed Martin as DC Attorney (CTH)
• This One Judge Keeps Getting Trump Cases, and It’s No Accident (Matt Margolis)
• America First Legal sues Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (JTN)
• The Treaty That Kept India And Pakistan In Check Is Gone. Now What? (Chopra)

 

 

 

 

Big as it gets

Carney

Ritter
https://twitter.com/SMO_VZ/status/1919507173295718879

Orban
https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1919730442808307869

Levine

Sharia

Fico
https://twitter.com/GlobalDiss/status/1919724917135646990

Catherine Austin Fitts talked about it

 

 

 

 

“I would be surprised if we don’t have more than 80% or 90% of those wrapped up by the end of the year,” he continued. “That may be much sooner. I would think that perhaps as early as this week, we will be announcing trade deals with some of our largest trading partners.”

• Bessent Says US Is Negotiating With 17 Out of 18 Major Trade Partners (JTN)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday testified to Congress that the United States is in the process of negotiating with 17 of its largest trading partners. The secretary told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government that they have received good offers from the countries they are currently negotiating with, in the wake of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Bessent did not give a specific timeline for when trade deals would be reached, but said he expects most deals will be reached by the end of the year, according to Fox Business.

“There are 18 very important trading relationships. We are currently negotiating with 17 of those trading partners,” Bessent said. “China – we have not engaged in negotiations with as of yet. “Approximately 97% or 98% of our trade deficit is with 15 countries, 18% of the countries are major trading partners, and I would be surprised if we don’t have more than 80% or 90% of those wrapped up by the end of the year,” he continued. “That may be much sooner. I would think that perhaps as early as this week, we will be announcing trade deals with some of our largest trading partners.”

Bessent did not specify what countries they expect a deal with soon, or what the details of those deals would be. But he did state he believes the U.S. will see a reduction in the tariffs it’s charged by other countries. Hours after his testimony, officials indicated that formal trade negotiations with China could take place as early as Thursday, when the secretary travels to Switzerland. U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer is also expected to meet with Chinese trade officials in Switzerland. The testimony also coincided with Trump’s meeting with new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Canada and Mexico are two of the U.S.’s largest trading partners, along with China, Germany and Japan.

India
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1919798852426858673

Read more …

A chance meeting! It allows everyone to save face…

• Bessent and USTR Greer Will Meet Chinese Trade Counterparts in Switzerland (CTH)

The media have been going bananas wondering when President Trump will begin negotiations with China. President Trump has been very clear that there is no need to open negotiations with China, but all discussions are welcome. Essentially the point is that tariffs will remain in place until Beijing gets to a point where they acquiesce to the reality of President Trump’s terms for reciprocal trade. The goal is to bring manufacturing back to the USA, not generate terms where manufacturing remains in China. The Chinese trade delegation is scheduled to be in Switzerland at the same time as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are scheduled to be there. Both Bessent and Greer announced today they will meet with their Chinese counterparts on the sidelines of their travel to Switzerland.

USTR Press Release – […] “At President Trump’s direction, I am negotiating with countries to rebalance our trade relations to achieve reciprocity, open new markets, and protect America’s economic and national security,” said Ambassador Greer. “I look forward to having productive meetings with some of my counterparts as well as visiting with my team in Geneva who all work diligently to advance U.S. interests on a range of multilateral issues. ”While in Switzerland, Ambassador Greer will also meet with his counterpart from the People’s Republic of China to discuss trade matters.”

Treasury Secretary Press Release – “During Secretary Bessent’s visit to Switzerland, he will meet with President Karin Keller-Sutter of Switzerland, during which the Secretary will follow up on their recent meeting on the sidelines of the recent World Bank Group (WBG) – International Monetary Fund (IMF) Spring Meetings. While in Switzerland, Secretary Bessent will also meet with the lead representative on economic matters from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). (link) As we previously noted, the Swiss are very interested in resolving their trade status quickly. The Swiss Franc is now at the highest point against the U.S dollar in decades. One franc is worth 1.21 dollars. This makes their exports cost even more. The Swiss government desperately needs to lower the value of their currency. The Swiss central bank has already dropped interest rates to 0.25% and is now contemplating negative interest rates as a result.

Read more …

Xi can’t deny knowing about it.

• Chinese Exporters Dodging US Tariffs – FT (RT)

Chinese exporters are using various methods to avoid steep US tariffs, including shipping goods through third countries to obscure their origin, Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing trade consultants, customs officials, and social media posts. The practice, known as “place-of-origin washing,” involves rerouting goods through countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and South Korea, and re-exporting them to the United States with new certificates of origin. The administration of US President Donald Trump recently imposed steep tariffs of up to 145% on Chinese goods, citing national security and trade imbalance concerns.

Chinese exporters fear that the tariffs will deprive them of access to one of their most important markets. According to the outlet, Chinese social media platforms are awash with ads offering “place-of-origin washing.” “The US must know of it,” one Malaysian salesperson has told FT. “It cannot get too crazy so we are controlling the amount [of orders we take].” According to FT, authorities in Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand are looking into the alleged practice and are implementing measures to tighten origin checks. Chinese exporters typically sell goods “free on board” (FOB), transferring liability to buyers once the goods leave China, which complicates enforcement efforts, the outlet added.

The other reported circumvention method is mixing high-cost items with cheaper goods, so exporters can underreport overall values of shipments, the FT quoted a cross-border trade consultant as saying. There are intermediaries who reportedly offer “grey area” tariff workarounds to small- and medium-sized enterprises. Beijing has accused Washington of “economic bullying,” retaliating with 125% duties on all US imports and implementing export controls. The Chinese Commerce Ministry said last week that it was evaluating the possibility of trade negotiations with the US but reiterated that Washington must show “sincerity” by canceling its tariffs if it wants meaningful dialogue.

Read more …

“China’s social safety net is practically nonexistent. When Chinese workers lose their jobs, they’re completely on their own: no unemployment benefits, no food stamps, nothing. That’s why we’re seeing increasing unrest as workers demand back pay and protest unfair dismissals.”

• China May Cave to Trump on Tariffs Soon (Matt Margolis)

President Donald Trump’s tough stance on China is already producing results, and the evidence suggests that Chairman Xi Jinping will have no choice but to back down. The Chinese economy, long propped up by unfair trade practices, is starting to crumble under the weight of Trump’s strategic 145% tariffs on Chinese imports. Protests from furious factory workers in China demanding back pay are spreading across the country after President Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports began impacting the communist nation’s economy. Unrest has been reported across the country as workers have taken to the streets protesting unpaid wages and challenging unfair dismissals following the closures of factories squeezed by US tariffs, according to Radio Free Asia.

Chinese industry leaders, meanwhile, are “extremely anxious” about the steep duties, with many telling factories and suppliers to halt or delay supplies, Wang Xin, head of an industry group representing more than 2,000 Chinese merchants told the Financial Times. The scale of the crisis is staggering. Goldman Sachs’ analysis indicates that 16 million Chinese jobs are at risk due to Trump’s tariffs. Chinese industry leaders are reportedly “extremely anxious” about the steep tariffs, which is likely an understatement given the mounting evidence of economic turmoil. “It’s not easy at the moment,” a 26-year-old toy factory worker told the FT. His employer, in the Chinese city of Zhejiang, mostly sells to the US, and management recently forced workers to take two weeks off unpaid in the face of the tariffs.

Last month, construction workers threatened to throw themselves off the buildings they were working on unless they received their unpaid wages in the northeastern city of Tongliao, Radio Free Asia reported. Elsewhere, a sporting goods factory in southern Hunan province also shut without warning last month, offering no compensation or social security benefits, leading hundreds of workers to go on strike, the outlet said. But here’s the key point that the mainstream media keeps missing: China’s social safety net is practically nonexistent. When Chinese workers lose their jobs, they’re completely on their own: no unemployment benefits, no food stamps, nothing. That’s why we’re seeing increasing unrest as workers demand back pay and protest unfair dismissals.

The Chinese Communist Party maintains its grip on power through economic growth and iron-fisted control. But when millions of workers take to the streets, even totalitarian regimes start to sweat. History shows that no government, not even one as powerful as China’s, can ignore the fury of its people indefinitely. Last month, Kevin O’Leary predicted that China’s economy would face serious pressure if the U.S. got tough on trade, which it has. He pointed out that millions of Chinese factory workers rely on American demand, and without access to it, China risks internal unrest or potentially economic collapse if the government prints money to keep people employed. This vindicates what Trump has been saying all along: China needs us far more than we need them. While some American companies are feeling the pinch from the tariffs, our diverse economy and robust worker protections provide a crucial buffer. China enjoys no such luxury. If Xi wants to stay in power, he’ll have to cave sooner rather than later.

Read more …

” It’s getting pushback from the European Parliament, but the fact is Ursula can do it anyways with minimal support from EU governments. She’s likely just waiting for the right moment.”

• The EU Zombie Uses Trump as Cover to Further Feed on Citizens (NC)

Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving for the western misleadership class. Any anti-democratic swindle on the EU wish list is now being sold as a remedy to the Orange Man. (And if it’s not Trump, it’s Russia). The US is no longer a reliable defense partner, they say. We must give more power to Brussels and send untold billions to weapons companies. The US is no longer a reliable economic partner, they say. We must increase competitiveness by weakening labor and empowering finance. The UK voters may have opted for Brexit, but London and Brussels are “defying Trump” with a “free and open trade” declaration that includes negotiations ‘on defense and security, fishing and energy, as well as a “common understanding” of which topics will be covered by intensive Brexit reset negotiations this year.’

The strange thing about these plans, however, is that they include reliance on US weapons and energy and alignment with US geopolitical and geoeconomic goals. Let’s focus here on how the EU is pressing ahead with plans to dramatically increase defense spending due to Trump Abandonment Syndrome. The EU Jazz Band Recent commentary by Rosa Balfour, director of Carnegie Europe, perfectly sums up these arguments. In a piece titled “Europe Tried to Trump-Proof Itself. Now It’s Crafting a Plan B” she explains why the EU has no choice but to redirect social spending towards the arms industry. Balfour’s romantic version of recent history starts on February 28. That’s when “the televised humiliation of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky” took place, and “Europe realized it could no longer rely on its longtime ally, the United States.” And here she is on the jazzy wreckage:

“The shocking depth and breadth of this realization cannot be overemphasized. Political leaders in European states, the European Union, and NATO displayed composure and coordination, but behind the scenes, the soundtrack was a frantic free jazz jam session with dramatic thuds and a long pause—the silence at the realization that the European comfort zone was over. And now, what are these composed and coordinated “political leaders” doing? They announce that Ukraine is Europe’s first line of defense, make grand plans for a “coalition of the willing,” and declare that Ukraine will become a “steel porcupine”. The coalition of the willing has fallen apart. The steel porcupine was ridiculed. And while those in the Kremlin likely aren’t losing any sleep, Europeans should be. That’s because, as Balfour writes, the European Commission “can play supporting roles by mobilizing financial resources and handling complicated in-house horse trading.”

That’s one way of putting it. The Commission is inching its way towards invoking emergency powers to push through parts of its rearmament slush fund. It’s getting pushback from the European Parliament, but the fact is Ursula can do it anyways with minimal support from EU governments. She’s likely just waiting for the right moment. Let’s look at the status of the European militarization billions. On March 19, the Commission introduced a 150 billion euro proposal — a first installment of what’s to be at least $900 billion— for establishing the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) through the reinforcement of European defence industry Instrument. It wants to move forward with it under Article 122 emergency powers which need only a qualified majority in the Council —as opposed to the usual consensus— which allows Ursula and friends to get around pesky vetoes from member countries.

The procedure for 122 is as follows: 1) the Commission proposes a Council measure; following which 2) the Council adopts the measure in line with [qualified majority voting]. No additional elements or participants are envisaged. This article allows the proposal to bypass parliamentary negotiations and go straight to the Council for negotiation and adoption. The Parliament’s role is reduced to submitting suggestions and requesting debates. How’s that for your democratic rules-based order? In an April 23 secret vote, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affair unanimously backed a legal opinion rejecting the Commission’s attempt to bypass it on a 150 billion euro rearmament fund. While it is a non-binding vote, it does signal opposition to Ursula’s plan, but it’s not some principled stand for the will of the people or any romantic notion like that.

No, it’s more about dividing up slices of the pie as European weapons industry lobbyists are increasingly active in Brussels and are trying to make sure their clients are rewarded. And so much of the feeble opposition is over getting a stronger “buy European” clause in SAFE (it currently requires 65 percent of war consumables and complex systems to come from within the EU, Ukraine, or EEA/EFTA states, which includes Turkiye and Norway. Why must Ursula’s commission sideline the Parliament and some member states in order to spend 900 billion on military purchases? They lay it out in their proposal. There’s the usual nonsense about Russia:

The EU and its Member States now face an intensifying Russian aggression against Ukraine and a growing security threat from Russia. It is also now clear that this threat will persist in the foreseeable future, considering that Russia has shifted to a war-time economy enabling a rapid scaleup of its military capabilities and replenishment of its stocks. The European Council therefore underlined, in its conclusions of 6 March 2025, that “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its repercussions for European and global security in a changing environment constitute an existential challenge for the European Union”. There’s also the Trump abandonment syndrome: At the same time, the United States, traditionally a strong ally, is clear that it believes it is over-committed in Europe and needs to rebalance, reducing its historical role as a primary security guarantor.

Read more …

” The disconnect between rulers and ruled has never been wider. The elites, ensconced in their Brussels bubble, continue to govern as if the people are an inconvenience, as if democracy means compliance rather than choice. The social contract is broken, and the backlash will only intensify.”

• The Death of Old Europe (von Hoffmeister)

The European Union, that grand and failing dream of technocrats, is dying. Its decline is not sudden or dramatic but a slow unraveling, a bureaucratic collapse in which every policy designed to sustain it only hastens its demise. It starves itself on the thin gruel of ideology – open borders dissolving nations into contested spaces, green mandates suffocating industry under the weight of unattainable standards, and a moralizing anti-Russian fervor that has left it isolated and energy-dependent. Once, Europe was the center of empires, the birthplace of civilizations that shaped the world. Now, it is a patient refusing medicine, convinced that its sickness is a form of enlightenment, that its weakness is a new kind of strength. The architects of this experiment still speak in the language of unity, but the cracks in the foundation are too deep to ignore.

Immigration was the first act of self-destruction, the point at which Western Europe’s ruling class severed itself from the people it claimed to govern. The elites, intoxicated by the rhetoric of multicultural utopia, flung open the gates without consideration for cohesion, for identity, for the simple reality that societies require more than abstract ideals to function. Cities have fractured into enclaves where parallel societies thrive, where police hesitate to patrol, where the native-born learn to navigate their own streets with caution. The promise was harmony, a blending of cultures into something vibrant and new. The reality is a quiet disintegration, a thousand unspoken tensions simmering beneath the surface. Politicians continue to preach the virtues of “diversity,” but the people – those who remember what it was like to have a shared history, a common language – are beginning to revolt. The backlash is no longer confined to the fringe. It is entering the mainstream, and the establishment trembles at what it has unleashed.

Then came the green delirium, the second pillar of Western Europe’s self-annihilation. Factories shutter under the weight of environmental regulations, farmers take to the streets in protest, and the middle class is squeezed between rising energy costs and stagnant wages. The climate must be saved, the leaders insist, even if the cost is economic ruin. Germany, once the industrial powerhouse of the continent, dismantles its nuclear infrastructure in favor of unreliable wind and solar power, only to return to coal when the weather turns unfavorable. There is a madness in this, a kind of collective hysteria where dogma overrides pragmatism, where the pursuit of moral purity blinds the ruling class to the suffering of ordinary citizens. The rest of the world watches, perplexed, as the EU willingly cripples itself for a cause that demands global cooperation – cooperation that is nowhere to be found. China builds coal plants, America drills for oil, India prioritizes growth over emissions, and the EU alone marches towards austerity, convinced that its sacrifice will inspire others. It will not.

And Russia – the great miscalculation, the strategic blunder that may yet prove fatal. Europe had a choice: to engage with Moscow as a partner, to integrate it into a stable continental order, or to treat it as an eternal adversary. It chose the latter, aligning itself fully with Washington’s confrontational stance, severing ties that had once provided cheap energy and economic stability. The pipelines are silent now, the ruble flows eastward, and Western Europe buys its gas at inflated prices from distant suppliers, enriching middlemen while its own industries struggle. Russia, spurned and sanctioned, turns to China, to India, to those willing to treat it as something other than a pariah. The Eurasian landmass is reconfiguring itself, and Europe is not at the center. The EU is on the outside, looking in, a spectator to its own irrelevance. The Atlanticists in Brussels believed they could serve two masters: their own people and Washington’s geopolitical whims. They were wrong.

In this unfolding drama, America and Russia emerge as twin pillars of Western civilization – different in temperament but united in their commitment to preserving sovereign nations against globalist dissolution. America, the last defender of the West’s entrepreneurial spirit and individual liberty, stands firm against the forces that would destroy borders and identities. Russia, keeper of traditional values and Christian heritage, guards against the cultural nihilism consuming Europe. Both understand that civilizations must defend themselves or perish; neither suffers the death wish that afflicts the Western European elites. And of Western Europe? It is a ghost at the feast, clutching its empty wineglass, muttering about “norms” and “values” as the world moves on without it. The European elites still cling to their illusions, still believe in the power of rhetoric over reality.

They speak of “strategic autonomy” while marching in lockstep with Washington’s wars, of “diversity” while their own cities become battlegrounds of competing identities, of “democracy” while silencing dissent with bureaucratic machinery and media censorship. The voters sense the decay. They rebel – in France, where Marine Le Pen’s supporters grow by the day; in Italy, where Giorgia Meloni’s government rejects the EU’s dictates on immigration; in Hungary, where Viktor Orbán openly defies the liberal orthodoxy. Yet the machine grinds on, dismissing every protest as populism, every objection as fascism. The disconnect between rulers and ruled has never been wider. The elites, ensconced in their Brussels bubble, continue to govern as if the people are an inconvenience, as if democracy means compliance rather than choice. The social contract is broken, and the backlash will only intensify.

Read more …

“Carney’s globalist net-zero platform will be sufficient to bring Canada to its knees without ever having to confront a political adversary.”

• Canada’s War on… Canada (Solway)

Canada is walking down a dangerous path. In a recent episode of “The Winston Marshall Show,” Steve Bannon has warned that “Canada could become ‘the next Ukraine’ if Russia or China presses territorial claims in the Arctic. “There’s no money there to defend anybody,” Bannon said, arguing that the United Kingdom, Canada’s historic security partner, “can’t defend itself.” Bannon suggested that Ottawa has only “two, maybe three years to act before external pressures harden.”

Bannon’s warning about Canada becoming a second Ukraine seems a gross exaggeration. Yet we recall that both Trudeau père and Trudeau fils were enamored of Communist China, that China has interfered in Canada’s elections favoring the Liberals, that Mark Carney is beholden to China to the tune of hundreds of millions in loans and “over $3 billion in politically sensitive investments with Chinese state-linked real estate and energy companies,” and that Canada hosted the Chinese military for tactical training in cold-weather warfare. Carney, a man of no charisma and less common sense for all his parenthetical savoir faire and encapsulated expertise, has already said that Canada’s friendly relationship and customary economic partnership with the U.S. is at an end. Meanwhile, an impoverished Canada will need generous amounts of foreign aid and may conceivably get it from China, in exchange for military bases and Canada-China cooperation in the Arctic.

As of this writing, Carney is in Washington for talks with Donald Trump. (Note, Trump is not in Ottawa for talks with Carney.) As Managing Editor for the Saskatchewan Standard, Christopher Oldcorn reports, Carney warned that any new deal “must be negotiated on our terms.” Trump was not impressed, telling Fox Business, “I’m not sure what he wants to see me about, but I guess he wants to make a deal.” Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick added, “They have their socialist regime, and it’s basically feeding off of America.” Carney is out of his depth, and Canada is in for a shock. Should a deal eventually emerge, it will not be on Carney’s terms.

At present, Canada reminds me of that preposterous knight in the Monty Python classic “The Holy Grail,” who continues pugnaciously challenging his antagonist even after he has lost both his arms and both his legs in the fight. This does not suggest that Canada is not a dangerous stump, and that it does not pose a threat to the U.S., for its alignment with China might conceivably mean a fentanyl-producing, militarily powerful, economically belligerent antagonist encroaching on its Arctic perimeter and entrenched along the 4,000-mile undefended border with the U.S. I would not put such recklessness past Carney as he labors diligently to turn Canada into a plebiscitarian sinkhole, deprived of political virility, reduced to penury and dependent for its survival on a foreign enemy.

I don’t see the U.S. engaging in open warfare with Canada, which Bannon considers a possibility. The scenario is far-fetched. Canada is not Ukraine; it is Lower Slobbovia. If you run a podcast called a “War Room,” you are prone to flights of fancy. This is not 1812, and America does not need to fire a single shot. It can batter Canada economically into submission with a stroke of the president’s pen despite China’s axial influence. America needs nothing that Canada has to offer, says Trump, neither cars, energy, lumber, etc. But it is also clear that the U.S. will not tolerate a Chinese presence on its northern border. For all his absurd bluster and his putting a Canadian slant on things, little man Carney will have to listen up.

Regrettably, Canada has become what Christopher Rufo, applying a well-known psychological personality concept, calls a “Cluster B society,” where “ideology replaces competence as a marker of distinction,” focusing on emotional excess, self-image, and dramatic posturing and leading to what psychologist Andrzej Lobaczewski calls a “pathocracy.” In a syndrome of this nature, Rufo laments, “The spontaneous life and beauty that are the fruits of a more balanced society will be snuffed out by grim commissars administering a Cluster B pathocracy. Our self-governing regime would be over.” Welcome to Canada and its preening prime minister.

Indeed, Canada is now foolishly engaged in a costly, surreptitious, self-harming skirmish with the U.S, which it could have avoided with a soupçon of maturity. The issue was never in doubt. To begin with, Canadian unity is fractured. There is little to no chance of gluing the pieces back together again and presenting a united front as a negotiating partner. It is at a distinct economic disadvantage in the so-called tariff war should Trump move to erase Canada’s $200 billion trade rip-off that helps to keep the country afloat, as Justin Trudeau himself admitted. Carney’s globalist net-zero platform will be sufficient to bring Canada to its knees without ever having to confront a political adversary. For the truth is that Canada is at war with itself. And it does not matter if it wins or loses, since it amounts to the same thing.

Read more …

“What Canada was, is not as important as what Canada is, and what it is becoming.” —Jason Stephan

• Canada: A Post-Election Autopsy (Solway)

As a result of the Liberal victory and the installation of Mark Carney as prime minister of Canada in the April 28, 2025, election, the country is now speeding down the Trans-Canada highway to certain destruction. Carney, of course, is a global financier, a promoter of centralized government control, a lover of censorship, and a climate change apostle who doubles as a trustee of the World Economic Forum and the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Change and Finance. He carries three passports, Canadian, Irish, and British, and has spent the last decade out of Canada, which obviously makes him the ideal candidate for the prime ministership, Canadian to the bone. He is, in fact, the spitting image of the Canadian psyche, a small man, slack-faced, awkward in comportment, grim and humorless, rag doll-like in his person. The fit is almost providential.

As one commenter put it, “Carney looks the part… the funeral director of Canada.” The question that is making the rounds is how the Liberal Party managed to erase a 20-point deficit in the polls and shrug off three terms of social and economic devastation that have seen the country plummet toward third-world status while at the same time elevating the most unprepossessing choice possible to the prime minister’s office. Is the nation brain-dead? Does it have a death wish? Is it merely greed for government largesse? What are the factors that have contributed to Canada’s accelerating decline? There are several possibilities, acting singly or in concert. Donald Trump: When Trump began trolling Canada with his 51st state bagatelle, he proved once again that Canadians have no sense of humor.

Canadians, by and large, with thank-the-Lord saving exceptions, are an earnest, priggish, self-massaging, unexciting people of limited intelligence who, like most of a leftist bent, cannot recognize a joke, especially when brandished by an American. What former New York Post correspondent Emma Jo-Morris says of the media seems largely true of the Canadian electorate: “The media isn’t biased because it’s liberal; it’s biased because it has no concept of reality. The people who make media content are incapable of separating their own self-worship from objective truth.” Of course, being Liberal and having no concept of reality amount to the same thing. So Canadians took Trump seriously and got their hackles up, huffing and puffing and strutting and posturing. But when Trump launched his tariff fusillade, this was a bridge too far.

Canadians girded themselves for war like a mighty gnat prepared to crush an elephant rather than adopt the grown-up approach of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who visited Trump and proposed a negotiated settlement. This was Mark Carney’s and the Liberals’ gold-plated opportunity to rally a subfusc Canadian electorate to a losing cause and scrub the Conservatives’ favorable poll numbers, leading ultimately to an electoral victory that will likely destroy the country. Indeed, Canada is more ragged than it ever was. What was once a Hudson Bay blanket is now a patchwork quilt. The New Democratic Party: After years of propping up the Liberals, leader Jagmeet Singh and the NDP came crashing down. The Party lost not only its longtime leader but also its official party status.

Its 25 parliamentary seats were reduced to seven. It is likely that many of the lost 18 seats defected to Carney’s Liberals, putting them over the top, good enough for a minority government, just three seats short of a majority. There is speculation that some or all of the remaining NDP rump may follow suit, giving the Liberals the majority government they desperately crave. Biased Coverage: The Canadian media and paper press are basically no different from their Pravda-like American cousins, trafficking in lies, innuendoes, suppressions, and outright interference in the electoral process. This is their stock-in-trade. With only a few outliers like Rebel News, the Western Standard, and two or three others, the press has become a vast and undifferentiated propaganda network for the Liberal machine, flush with Liberal plugola. Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, is supported by an annual $1.4 billion grant, which Carney has promised to inflate and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre had threatened to eliminate. The sequel was predictable.

Read more …

Can’t conquer Iran, Victor. Start there. Or Yemen.

• The Trump-Iran Deal, Explained (Victor Davis Hanson)

Just recently, the Houthis, that is the terrorist organization that controls half of Yemen and has been hit hard by the United States for its interruption of maritime commerce in the Red Sea and its serial attacks on Israel, has been—I guess you would say—neutered. Its port facilities, its airport, a lot of its missile depots, its command and control have all been neutralized. But yet, here they are with a vestigial force. They just sent a missile, not just into Israel, but into Israel’s international Ben Gurion Airport. It almost hit one of the terminals. Didn’t kill anybody. But it made a huge crater right on the periphery of the airport grounds. And for some reason it was not intercepted by Israel’s tripartite missile defense system. Let me add another incident. Just recently, almost at the same time, four more terrorists were arrested in the United Kingdom for organizing Iranian-inspired terror against citizens of Britain. And of course, we remember that Iran was involved in an effort to assassinate President Donald Trump.

What am I getting at is, we’re right in the middle of negotiations with Iran. Donald Trump feels that they are historically vulnerable. The Assad regime, their lifeline to the Arab world, is gone. Kaput. Vanished. They can’t use the Damascus airport to airlift weapons for Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been reduced dramatically in its effectiveness. Hamas is—I don’t know what you’d call Hamas. It’s living underground among the rubble of Gaza. And then, of course, the Houthis, as I mentioned, have been attacked. Israel has demonstrated that it can penetrate, at will, the supposedly formidable air defenses of Iran. The United States, in addition, is building up its strategic bombing force—in Diego Garcia and in areas that can reach Iran—with the capability of dropping these 20,000 to 30,000-pound bunker busters. We have two carriers that will soon be assembled near there.

What am I getting at again? The pressure is all on Iran. Militarily. Diplomatically. Economically. Socially. Culturally. What do I mean by that? Culturally, there is about 30% to 40% of the country are non-Farsi Persian speakers. And they’re very restive, angry. Power outages. The regime is unpopular. It’s diverted billions of dollars to these terrorist appendages that now didn’t pay off, that they’re defunct. And so, Donald Trump thinks that he, with this maximum pressure, putting this crushing oil embargo—which by the way, former President Joe Biden lifted—that he can bring them to negotiations one last time. Personally, I don’t think he can. Nothing that that regime has ever said is accurate. Nobody in the MAGA movement wants an optional war in the Middle East. But they will have nuclear weapons, perhaps in a year. So, what is the likely scenario? The likely scenario is they will lose face if they negotiate away their nuclear weapons.

That is the only lever they have over Western powers now that their terrorist children are all gone. So, I don’t think they’re gonna make a deal. They’re gonna delay, delay, delay; lie, lie, lie; use the Houthis. And they are playing with fire because once Donald Trump gives them an opportunity for a peaceful way out of their dilemma—that is they can negotiate an end to their nuclear program. They don’t need nuclear power. They have the fourth-largest fossil fuel reserves in the world. They have enough energy for themselves and for export for an endless amount of time. And yet they still are working on this nuclear project, not for peaceful energy generation, but to have a nuclear deterrent. And so, what we should look for in the next few months is that an exasperated Trump administration will finally throw up its hands and say, “You can’t deal with these people, but they’re not gonna get a nuclear weapon.”

At that point, one of two things will happen—I should say one of three things. Israel will hit back because of the Houthis’ attack on its airport. And that could come sooner or later. Or the United States will intervene. I don’t think it’ll intervene on its own. Or there’ll be a joint Israeli-American operation. But by the end of the year, I don’t think Iran will have a nuclear deterrent. And then we’re gonna be watching a mystery unfold. If it should be hit, and if it should lose its nuclear potential, what will be the reaction of the Iranian people? Will they be angry that their national sovereignty has been attacked? Or will they be delighted that this 50-year hated regime is now gone and they don’t have to spend money on these Arab terrorist groups that have brought them no profit? That’ll be something to see. And I think we’ll see it at the end of the year.

Read more …

“Decades after the civil rights movement, academia is obsessed with fixating not on intelligence, qualifications, or content of character, but rather on skin color..”

• $373M in DEI Funding at US Universities in Four Years (Salgado)

Educayshun has become mere propaganda at hundreds of American schools and universities. In fact, Defending Education has identified a staggering $373 million in DEI funding since 2016 across more than a hundred institutions of higher learning. Defending Ed investigated 130 colleges and universities across 44 states and Washington, D.C. to date, identifying 281 diversity, equity, and inclusion funds (DEI). These include scholarships and programs based around race and sexual “identity.” Defending Ed warned that, while many universities and colleges have now officially ended DEI programs under Trump administration pressure, in many cases, the programs have simply been renamed or gone underground for the time being. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, for example, simply retitled its “Office of Diversity and Inclusion Fund” to be the “Community and Belonging Support Fund.”

Just add more pablum for a surface-level makeover. From the Defending Ed website: “To date, we have been able to track down over $373,344,424 in donations to fund institution DEI programs, scholarships, and offices. While some of the funding has been tracked down via “Day of Giving” style campaign webpages, the vast majority of the money has been traced through university announcements, webpages, and reports. The information contained in this report primarily covers the years from 2021 to present with one or two exceptions noted below. Decades after the civil rights movement, academia is obsessed with fixating not on intelligence, qualifications, or content of character, but rather on skin color.

This is a vast disservice to students of all ethnicities, and has turned our institutions of higher learning into little more than propaganda machines. Defending Ed also provided examples of some of the DEI projects and funds. The University of Michigan “raised over $98,665,269 for a wide range of DEI initiatives and funds, including scholarships for first-generation students” and established a “George Floyd Memorial Scholarship.” According to a 2023 University of Delaware report, the university was able to raise $21 million to expand its diversity, equity, and inclusion programming.

One of the funds included in the donor haul was it’s “Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, or JEDI, Fund” which states that support “helps provide programs, resources and opportunities to cultivate educated and empowered individuals who not only understand the origins of societal challenges related to equity and social justice but also have the tools to create solutions to address them.”… The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of the Arts and Architecture includes its “Anti-racism Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” program which includes the UCLA Arts Racial Equity Fund. Meanwhile, the University of California, Berkeley fundraised $186,420 for “Increasing Diversity and Opportunity at Cal” during a 2025 campaign. These universities need to be exposed and their federal funding cut off so long as they continue to promote racist DEI.

Read more …

Altman doesn’t dare to go up against Musk? it’s not just them anymore. It’s people seeing endless profit vs people seeing endless trouble.

• OpenAI Blinks: Scraps For-Profit Plan After Outside Pressure (ZH)

In a blog post overnight, the OpenAI Board revealed that its nonprofit arm would retain control of the chatbot company following backlash over its attempt to restructure into a for-profit business. “We made the decision for the nonprofit to retain control of OpenAI after hearing from civic leaders and engaging in constructive dialogue with the offices of the Attorney General of Delaware and the Attorney General of California,” the OpenAI Board wrote in a blog post. Last fall, OpenAI’s Sam Altman was preparing to overhaul the company’s structure and transition to a for-profit business—an effort that sparked a heated legal battle with co-founder Elon Musk, who sought to keep OpenAI ‘open’. The board provided new details about OpenAI’s evolving structure:

OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit, and is today overseen and controlled by that nonprofit. Going forward, it will continue to be overseen and controlled by that nonprofit. Our for-profit LLC, which has been under the nonprofit since 2019, will transition to a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)–a purpose-driven company structure that has to consider the interests of both shareholders and the mission. The nonprofit will control and also be a large shareholder of the PBC, giving the nonprofit better resources to support many benefits. Our mission remains the same, and the PBC will have the same mission.

“We want our nonprofit to be the largest and most effective nonprofit in history that will be focused on using AI to enable the highest-leverage outcomes for people,” Altman wrote in a letter to employees. He also provided details about OpenAI’s evolving structure: OpenAI’s nonprofit will remain in control of the organization after discussions with civic leaders and attorneys general from California and Delaware. The for-profit LLC will convert to a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)—a mission-aligned model also used by other AI labs like Anthropic and X.ai.

This move replaces the old capped-profit structure with a simpler equity-based model, but does not represent a sale. The nonprofit will retain oversight and become a major shareholder in the PBC, giving it more resources to advance AI for broad societal benefit. A new nonprofit commission will help guide efforts to ensure AI supports public good in areas like health, education, science, and public services. OpenAI says this new structure will enable it to make faster and safer progress toward its mission of democratizing AGI. Meanwhile, Marc Toberoff, lead counsel for Elon Musk in the ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI, told Bloomberg via email that Altman’s decision to scale back for-profit plans “changes nothing.”

“OpenAI’s announcement is a transparent dodge that fails to address the core issues: charitable assets have been and still will be transferred for the benefit of private persons, including Altman, his investors and Microsoft,” Toberoff said. In March, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers blocked Musk’s request to stop Altman from restructuring OpenAI into a for-profit company. This led the judge to expedite a trial for this fall. Given “the public interest at stake and potential for harm if a conversion contrary to law occurred,” Rogers said, adding that an expedited trial later this year would be on “core” claim that OpenAI’s structure conversion plan is unlawful and “potentially the interrelated contract-based claims.” Earlier this year, a Musk-led group offered to purchase OpenAI for around $100 billion, a bid that was quickly rejected.

Read more …

“Now, at long last, we can see the fruit of the corrupt tree sprouting in our court system, where judges help illegal immigrants escape through the back door of the courtroom, where other judges demand the return of deported gang members or halt the deportation of antisemitic radicals, and where every effort to put America first is ruled unconstitutional..”

• (None Dare Call It) Treason of the Judiciary (Miele)

Thursday, April 24, was a day like any other day—the sun came up, the sun went down, and President Donald Trump was hit with at least three nationwide injunctions by federal district court judges. That’s just the way it goes if you are a president who wants to take back America from the entrenched left-wing bureaucracy and restore common sense to government before it is too late. The danger of the bureaucracy was predicted by Julien Benda in his 1927 book “The Treason of the Clerks,” which warned of the danger of the intellectual class adopting political passions that had previously been the sole domain of the masses. We see this most distinctly today in the federal bureaucracy, which I dare say has the greatest concentration of degree-holders from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia (and the like) of any sector in the nation, other than the incestuous universities themselves.

The treason that Benda described was the loss of independence of thought and dispassionate reason by intellectuals, and the accompanying subservience of intellect to political passions. During Trump’s first term, I wrote a column describing the danger that Benda had foreseen: Benda wrote at the beginning of the age of mass communication, and yet he already saw that “political passions have attained a universality never before known. … Thanks to the progress of communication and, still more, to the group spirit, it is clear that the holders of the same political hatred now form a compact impassioned mass, every individual of which feels himself in touch with the infinite number of others, whereas a century ago such people were comparatively out of touch with each other and hated in a ‘scattered’ way” …

It seems that we are now living out Benda’s worst nightmare—an age of manipulation of the masses by those who think they know better—whether you call them the “deep state,” the “opposition party,” “the national elite,” “the entrenched bureaucracy,” or just “the establishment.” And for the past 10 years, they have turned their hatred on Donald Trump. Without rhyme or reason, they fight him on every reform and arm themselves with invented scandal and fake news. Now, in Trump’s second term, we see that the bureaucracy has a close ally in the judiciary—not one judge, but multitudes that aim to preserve the status quo of liberal governance. If that wasn’t clear before April 24, there was no room for doubt after the day was filled with one court ruling after another telling Trump to “stand back and stand by” rather than to exercise his lawful power as president.

Here’s what tumbled out of the judicial branch that day: – A federal district court judge in California blocked Trump’s executive order that would have denied federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit or forbid cooperation with federal immigration authorities. – A Washington, D.C., judge blocked the Trump administration from following through on the president’s executive order requiring that voters in federal elections show proof of citizenship when registering. – A district judge in New Hampshire blocked efforts to defund public schools that utilize diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Not to be outdone, judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C., essentially issued the same order, giving added protection to one of the least popular programs ever shoved down the throat of American citizens. At the time, those were the latest of more than a dozen nationwide injunctions issued by unelected federal judges who appeared more interested in preserving and protecting left-wing shibboleths than the Constitution.

Also in courts across the nation that week were attempts by judges to reject Trump’s authority as commander in chief to ban transgender participation in the military, to deny Trump the right to strip security clearances from law firms that he says put national security interests second to political partisanship, and stop the administration’s efforts to eliminate federal news services such as Voice of America that engage in anti-American propaganda. Those are all in addition to the several injunctions issued relative to Trump’s promised reform of the immigration system to expedite deportation of illegal immigrants, especially those who have a criminal history or are members of international gangs. If that seems normal, it isn’t. There were only six nationwide injunctions during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, and only 12 during the Barack Obama presidency. That increased to 14 under President Joe Biden, which was surpassed by Trump in the first nine weeks of his second term when 15 such injunctions were issued.

Of course, Trump should be accustomed to such judicial abuse. In his first term, there were 64 injunctions against his policies, a staggering 92.2% issued by Democrat-appointed judges. Julien Benda would have clearly recognized the “political passions” that had supplanted the disinterested intellectual rigor we once expected of our judges. Yet because of our habituated respect for the separation of powers, none dare call it the treason of the judiciary. That of course is a reference to the 1960s tract “None Dare Call It Treason” by John A. Stormer. Stormer took on the country’s intellectual elites, blaming them for working against the interests of the nation by tolerating or quietly promoting communism. The left-wing elites of the day laughed it off as another right-wing conspiracy theory, but as time has passed it’s become clear that there was indeed a long-range effort to corrupt our institutions with Communism 101—reducing social acceptance of religion, turning education into indoctrination, and infiltrating government with the intelligentsia that thinks American values are outdated.

Now, at long last, we can see the fruit of the corrupt tree sprouting in our court system, where judges help illegal immigrants escape through the back door of the courtroom, where other judges demand the return of deported gang members or halt the deportation of antisemitic radicals, and where every effort to put America first is ruled unconstitutional. Fighting back against the overreach of the judiciary must be Trump’s No. 1 priority as he seeks to restore sanity to the federal government. Because the most important principle of constitutional law that is being decided in the next few months is whether the president is truly the chief executive or whether he serves at the pleasure of left-wing judges who put political passion ahead of national interests. In the ultimate irony, the case must be decided by nine men and women in black robes, the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The fate of the nation’s future hinges on whether they will seek justice impartially or be swayed by partisan rancor. Unfortunately, it’s an open question.

Read more …

“After Trump’s triumphant return to the White House, he appointed Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense. Since then, recruitment numbers have exploded, after years of the number of recruits tumbling..”

• SCOTUS Rules On Trump’s Ban On Transgenders In The Military (Downey Jr)

The Supreme Court issued a brief order on Tuesday allowing the Trump administration’s ban on transgender people in the military to proceed. Though the order was unsigned, the usual suspects, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, locked arms and said they would have denied the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court’s order. Several years after the Biden administration chased warriors away from the military by mandating the COVID vaccine and also encouraging transgender people to join through DEI initiatives, the Supreme Court paused a decision by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, located in Seattle, who suggested that Trump’s decision to ban transgender soldiers was unconstituional, claiming that it was “unsupported, dramatic and facially unfair.”

“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,” Trump’s decree stated. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in San Francisco, refused to put a hold on Judge Settle’s decision. The ruling is sure to set off a dumpster fire of liberal whining, crying, and protests, not to mention another reason the left will complain that “Trump hates the LGBTFBI crew.” Shortly after taking back the White House, Trump issued a directive stating that people with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria would no longer be allowed to serve in any branch of the U.S. military. Under the Biden administration, many transgender people chose to join the military, some of whom opted for costly gender reassignment surgeries. Trump also released a directive stating that federal funds would no longer be spent on such surgeries.

Another important factor to keep in mind regarding Trump’s decision to keep out transgenders, the woke, and people hired and promoted through DEI initiatives is the very real notion that woke military members would be more likely to fight fellow Americans when told to do so, as some news media pundits are inclined to believe. It is unknown how long it will take to purge the military of transgender service members who pretend to be a gender other than that which science deemed them at birth. Left-leaning news sites, like Reuters, are reporting the story and suggesting that it is an attack against people who do not agree with the “gender they were assigned at birth.”

The decision is just the latest in a wave of Supreme Court victories for President Trump. The exact number of service members currently suffering from gender dysphoria is unknown, but some believe there are as many as 14,000 transgender people throughout all five branches of the military, though a senior-level member of the Defense Department suggested that there may be only 4,240 who are currently serving. After Trump’s triumphant return to the White House, he appointed Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense. Since then, recruitment numbers have exploded, after years of the number of recruits tumbling during Joe Biden’s single four-year presidential term.

Read more …

“..If the nomination is not successful by May 20th, there is a scenario where DC Judge James Boasberg could appoint the U.S. attorney. Mary McCord is smiling.”

• President Trump Sends Message of Support for Ed Martin as DC Attorney (CTH)

President Trump has sent a message of support via Truth Social on behalf of Ed Martin to be confirmed as U.S. Attorney for the important Washington DC office. Multiple ‘republican’ members of the Senate do not support the nomination. If the nomination is not successful by May 20th, there is a scenario where DC Judge James Boasberg could appoint the U.S. attorney. Mary McCord is smiling.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “Ed Martin is going through the approval process to be U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia. According to many but, in particular, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., his approval is IMPERATIVE in terms of doing all that has to be done to SAVE LIVES and to, MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN. This is a passion for Ed, more so than for almost anyone that I have seen. One of the reasons that I was so successful in winning the 2024 Presidential Election is my commitment to Health, and helping to Make America Healthy. The Cost of the Chronic Disease Epidemic has gotten out of control over the past four years of the Biden Presidency. We are going to take our Country BACK, and FAST. Ed Martin will be a big player in doing so and, I hope, that the Republican Senators will make a commitment to his approval, which is now before them. Ed is coming up on the deadline for Voting and, if approved, HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN. When some day in the future you look back at your Vote for Ed Martin, you will be very proud of what you have done for America and America’s Health. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The Republican opposition group to Ed Martin is the traditional element of the party who stand against the basic principles of what the MAGA movement is all about.

“Via CNN – […] Trump and his allies have a short window to get Martin over the finish line. If Republicans don’t confirm him by May 20 when his interim position expires, there would be a new process to play out in picking a new nominee. One option could be US District Judge James Boasberg appointing someone to become DC’s top prosecutor. Boasberg, a Barack Obama appointee, has presided over a number of high-profile cases challenging Trump policies, drawing the ire of the president and his allies. After this story published on Monday evening, Trump posted about Martin’s confirmation battle on Truth Social writing that his “approval is IMPERATIVE.” Top Justice Department officials, who had preferred another candidate for the job, have had to caution Martin about some of his public activities since taking on the job on an interim basis, sources briefed on the matter told CNN.

Despite growing blowback on the nomination, allies of Trump and Martin have made clear that the president has so far been thrilled with Martin’s job performance. “Martin is President Trump’s favorite US Attorney,” one source familiar with his nomination process previously told CNN. . On top of Trump’s direct calls to GOP senators, 23 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley and Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Monday urging them to move forward on Martin’s confirmation, according to a copy shared with CNN. Trump ally Charlie Kirk also posted on X over the weekend about the need to successfully confirm Martin. DOJ officials who may have wanted someone else for the job have come to terms with the fact that he is Trump’s pick and are doing everything they can to help get him confirmed, sources briefed on the matter told CNN.

Martin has successfully implemented Trump’s “law and order agenda” and been a “fantastic U.S. Attorney for D.C.,” said Alex Pfeiffer, White House principal deputy communications director. “The White House looks forward to his continued success in the role. Ed has shown he is the right man for the job.” Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are expected to keep Trump’s nominee on track, despite diminishing odds Martin will advance to see a full Senate vote.”

Let us not pretend amongst ourselves…. In basic truth, both the democrats and republicans lost in the 2024 election. Donald Trump defeated the republican candidate, Ron DeSantis, and Donald Trump defeated the democrat candidate, Kamala Harris. As the second term of President Trump continues, the republican party will show increasingly obvious opposition to all of the policies and results coming from the MAGA agenda. In the background of our political dynamic the Republican apparatus is already having conversations about what comes next, after the MAGA infection identified as President Trump is removed. When we ask ourselves why President Trump’s agenda hasn’t been codified by congressional action, the honest answer is, because the MAGA policy is not supported by the Republicans in congress. Nothing about this dynamic is likely to change. The republican resistance is simply wearing a mask right now, and there are certain times when that mask slips. It has always been thus….

Read more …

Boasberg rules!

• This One Judge Keeps Getting Trump Cases, and It’s No Accident (Matt Margolis)

In a development that should send chills down the spine of every American who cares about the rule of law, Judge James Boasberg — you remember this guy, right? — has somehow ended up with case after case involving President Donald Trump’s second term. The D.C. swamp’s judicial machine continues its relentless assault on our duly elected president, with Boasberg emerging as its not-so-secret weapon. The so-called “random” assignment system has produced results that defy probability and reek of deliberate manipulation. The good news is that House Republicans are fighting back. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Darrell Issa (R-Calif), and Chip Roy (R-Texas) are demanding answers from Angela Caesar, the court clerk who oversees this suspicious case assignment system.

In a letter that Townhall obtained on Monday, they are demanding explanations for what any rational observer would recognize as a coordinated effort to undermine the Trump presidency. “Many of these nationwide injunctions have raised concerns that Article III judges are exceeding their constitutional authority by replacing the policy decisions of the duly elected President with their own preferences, eroding public trust in the integrity and fairness of our judicial system. Many high-profile cases challenging policy decisions of the Trump Administration have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (District Court),” the letter states. “As Congress considers potential legislative reforms to address the abuse of nationwide injunctions and adjust the national distribution and local assignment of cases challenging Executive Branch policy decisions, we write to request information about the District Court’s assignment of cases.”

Boasberg has been handed several significant cases within a remarkably short timeframe relating to the Trump administration. His docket now includes cases challenging the administration’s implementation of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as matters concerning administration officials’ use of the Signal app, both assigned less than two weeks apart. But that’s not all. The judge is also overseeing cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency and disputes over federal funding for programs allegedly violating civil rights laws (though the latter was dismissed at the plaintiff’s request). While the D.C. District Court’s local rules govern case assignments, the concentration of such politically sensitive matters under one judge has sparked legitimate questions about the process. The timing and clustering of these assignments demand closer scrutiny.

Last month, the House passed critical legislation aimed at restraining these activist judges who have abandoned their constitutional role in favor of political warfare. But is it too little, too late? The Left’s judicial assault continues unabated while the mainstream media yawns or actively cheers it on. The American people deserve to know: Who is pulling the strings behind these courthouse doors? How deep does this corruption go? Furthermore, will anyone be held responsible for the misuse of our judicial system against the President of the United States?

Read more …

“America First Legal, led by Trump’s powerhouse advisor Stephen Miller..”

• America First Legal sues Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (JTN)

The President Donald Trump-aligned legal group America First Legal Foundation on Monday sued Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, accusing him of acting beyond his scope as head of the U.S. Judicial Conference. The lawsuit was also lodged against Robert Conrad, who serves as the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, according to Fox News. The legal action accuses the men of operating beyond their scope of resolving cases or controversies, citing their cooperation with Congress in helping them investigate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and a willingness to create or adopt a code of ethics for the court.

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” the foundation said. “The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” which would be overseen by the president and not the courts. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden will preside over the case.

Read more …

Complex. Given their history and their nuclear status, they should never be allowed to come even this far. Call Xi.

“By Air Marshal Anil Chopra (Retired), an Indian Air Force veteran fighter test pilot and is the former Director-General of the Center for Air Power Studies in New Delhi.”

• The Treaty That Kept India And Pakistan In Check Is Gone. Now What? (Chopra)

India launched ‘Operation Sindoor’ on the night of May 7, targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan in retaliation for a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgram, Kashmir last month. New Delhi stated that it hit at least nine targets. “Our actions have been focused, measured, and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in the selection of targets and method of execution,” the Indian government said in a statement. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif descried the strikes as a “cowardly” attack and said Islamabad “has every right to respond forcefully to this act of war imposed by India, and a forceful response is being given.” Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated to military actions following the killing of 26 innocent vacationers in Pahalgam, Kashmir by Pakistan-backed terrorists in a Hamas-style terror attack.

Pakistan Army and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) links were established by India’s National Investigation Agency days after the mass killing. The public was angry, and sought appropriate revenge. A wide range of diplomatic and economic measures were announced by both nations following the attack. Remarkably, India has put the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in abeyance for the first time since the pact was inked by the two neighbors. Rejecting India’s move to suspend the IWT, Pakistan warned that any diversion of water will be treated as an ‘Act of War.’ Islamabad also said that it would hold “in abeyance” its participation in all bilateral agreements with India, including the landmark 1972 Simla Agreement.

Pakistan pledged a full-spectrum national power response to any threat against its sovereignty, put its armed forces on high alert, and began selective mobilisation. Most measures were quite expected. But by suspending the Shimla Agreement, Pakistan unwittingly handed over big advantage to India. What is the Shimla Agreement? The Shimla agreement between India and Pakistan was signed on July 2, 1972 at Barnes Court (Raj Bhavan) in the town of Shimla in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh, between then-Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her Pakistani counterpart Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It was ratified on July 15, 1972 (by Pakistan), and August 3, 1972 (by India), and became effective the next day. The agreement had come in the wake of Pakistan’s comprehensive defeat in the 1971 war that split the country and created independent Bangladesh.

The agreement stated:“The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly arid harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.” The document was meant to lay the foundation of a peaceful and stable relationship between the two nations. It was decided that the two countries are resolved “to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.”

The treaty mandated that the two countries resolve issues bilaterally, and superseded the United Nation’s resolution on Kashmir. Perhaps more importantly, under the agreement, India and Pakistan established the Line of Control (LoC), previously called the Ceasefire Line, making it a quasi-border between the two nations. New Delhi succeeded in persuading Islamabad to change the name of the ceasefire line to the Line of Control (LoC), thus delinking it from the UN-imposed 1949 ceasefire line and highlighting that Kashmir was now a purely bilateral matter between India and Pakistan. The treaty clearly stated that Indian and Pakistani forces must be withdrawn to their respective sides of the “international border.” That in Jammu and Kashmir, the LoC resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice toward the recognised position of either side.

Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. India returned around 13,000 square kilometers of land taken in battle on the western border but retained some strategic areas, including Turtuk, Dhothang, Tyakshi, and Chalunka in Chorbat Valley, covering more than 883 square kilometers, so as to facilitate lasting peace. Both sides further agreed to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of the LoC. The fact that there has only been one limited war since the agreement was signed reflects its effectiveness. Some Indian bureaucrats later argued that a tacit agreement to convert this LoC into a international border, was reached during a one-on-one meeting between the two heads of government. Pakistani bureaucrats have denied any such thing. Nor was that acceptable to Indian public.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Green
https://twitter.com/SteveLovesAmmo/status/1919731269673365609

Spike

OMG
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1919702279579455976

Elephant

Baby
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1919766603157406118

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries