Salvador Dali Mme. Reese 1931
O’Leary
Let’s cut the fluff—this is economic warfare. China’s got factories with nowhere to ship, and 125% tariffs are choking them out. You think unemployed workers stay quiet? Xi’s not on a ballot, but he’s playing with fire.
The U.S. is the buyer of last resort—and when that stops,… pic.twitter.com/BVpcdjGN7u
— Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful (@kevinolearytv) April 11, 2025
Chamath
NEW: Billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya praises Trump's tariffs on China, rips the global elite for trying to "scare-monger" him.
"For the last forty years, whether they want to admit it or not, Donald Trump has been right."
"What you see right now is them violently trying to… pic.twitter.com/k5JXqKMlQt
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 11, 2025
Sacks
https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1910861025269657952
Soros
https://twitter.com/katee_K1/status/1910772111649419434
Alex
Alex Jones Breaks Down the Israel and Iran Conflict pic.twitter.com/jmKJhmc8fe
— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) April 12, 2025
Alex Jones: CIA Gave X-Files a 9/11 Script Months Before It Happened pic.twitter.com/Jg54FTcUxR
— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) April 11, 2025
Keep things fluid at first. Can’t hurt. Keep them guessing.
• Market Tumult From Fractious Messaging Forces Trump Narrative Shift On Tariffs (JTN)
President Donald Trump’s tariffs have successfully brought at least 70 countries to the negotiating table, but the tumultuous market situation highlights a need for the administration to simplify the message to the public. And they seem to have coalesced around Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s approach of marketing them as a negotiating tactic. The initial “Liberation Day” tariffs saw Trump impose sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs across most of America’s key trading partners and the creation of a baseline 10% tariff for other nations. Close trading partners such as Vietnam, Japan, South Korea and Israel speedily reached out to negotiate deals, with some even announcing the end of tariffs in anticipation of Trump’s initial announcement. The market fell precipitously in the following days amid internal disagreements within the Cabinet on both messaging and the long-term approach. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) chief Elon Musk and Bessent became proponents of a negotiation-focused approach to the tariffs, while Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and economic advisor Peter Navarro favored the tariffs on their own merits.
The administration, however, froze the most expansive tariffs this week, with the exception of those on China, which Trump raised to 125%. Markets subsequently soared on the news, leading to higher closures for major indices. They fell again on Thursday as the administration stood by its China tariffs. When making his “Liberation Day” announcement, Trump pitched the tariffs as a means of encouraging domestic production in the United States and revitalizing towns left behind by globalization. “Now it’s our turn to prosper, and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt,” he said. “Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country and you see it happening already. We will supercharge our domestic industrial base.”
Not all members of the Cabinet were on the same page and a division emerged between officials emphasizing the tariffs as a negotiating tactic to secure favorable trade deals and those who supported maintaining the tariffs on their own merit in the longer-term for revenue purposes. Musk and Navarro, specifically, had a high-profile disagreement throughout the week, with the pair openly taking potshots at one another on television and social media. Navarro, a tariff proponent, called attention to Musk’s automotive business and suggested it was a motivating factor for his opposition to tariffs. Musk, in turn, dubbed Navarro “Peter Retarrdo” and called him a “moron.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt brushed off the exchanges, saying “boys will be boys.”
As uncertainty in the market grew, however, Trump and his supporters began to shift decidedly toward presenting the tariffs as a negotiating strategy. Trump himself took the lead on this approach, largely through his Truth Social account. On Monday, for instance, Trump posted that “countries from all over the World are talking to us. Tough but fair parameters are being set. Spoke to the Japanese Prime Minister this morning. He is sending a top team to negotiate!” “As I’ve said in the past, no one creates leverage for himself like [Donald Trump],” Bessent said, following Trump’s decision to pause some of the tariffs. Bessent and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett echoed the negotiation-centered line of messaging throughout the week. Hassett on Thursday confirmed to Fox News that “we’ve already got offers on the table from at least 15 countries.” He further clarified that many more had offered to negotiate but that these nations had submitted tangible proposals.
Even Lutnick, one of the administration’s most vocal tariff proponents, appeared to fall in line by Wednesday, saying “President Trump is standing firm against our global trade imbalances. We will sign the greatest deals in history.” “The Golden Age is coming. We are committed to protecting our interests, engaging in global negotiations and exploding our economy,” he added Thursday. While far from the original messaging, some members of the administration have suggested that the larger tariffs and their subsequent reduction may have been planned as a means of bringing typically intransigent trading partners to the negotiating table. “I think that what’s been going on all along is the president recognizes that in order to get the big change that we need for America’s workers… that we need to create enough pressure on our trading partners that things that American presidents have been asking for, for decades, are actually offered at the table,” Hassett said on CNBC.
Lutnick, for his part, appeared to echo that during a recent meeting, saying “we have so many countries to talk to.” “They have come with offers that they never, ever, ever would’ve come with but for the moves the president has made,” he added. “You’re going to start seeing deals, one after the other.” Potentially boding well for Lutnick’s prediction is the Australian refusal of a Chinese proposal to join forces to oppose American tariffs. Beijing officials have suggested targeted countries work against Washington, though it has evidently struggled to attract partners for the endeavor.
“.. still “subject to the tariff under the original IEEPA on China of 20 percent.”
Things that everyone uses. Sensitive. Hurts Americans. Bring production home step by step. Ask Elon.
• Trump Exempts Laptops, Smartphones, Chips From Reciprocal Tariff Blitz (ZH)
Update (1255ET): As Trump adviser Stephen Miller points out, the products are still “subject to the tariff under the original IEEPA on China of 20 percent.”
Washington Post: maybe your reporters should try reading before posting. These products are subject to the tariff under the original IEEPA on China of 20 percent. https://t.co/MI4oDEb8S3
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) April 12, 2025
The White House issued a further clarifying statement that the exemption (from the higher tariffs only) will be retroative to April 5th and all duties received since then will be refunded. Any duties that were collected at or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025, pursuant to Executive Order 14257 and the Subsequent Orders, on imports that are excepted under Executive Order 14257 and the Subsequent Orders because they are “semiconductors,” as explained in this memorandum, shall be refunded in accordance with U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s standard procedures for such refunds.
* * *
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued an updated guidance late Friday night on product exclusions from President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, imposed under Executive Order 14257 and its amendments (EO 14259). The exclusions cover a wide range of electronic devices, including smartphones, laptops, and related components. First, President Trump paused reciprocal tariffs for non-retaliating countries (e.g., China) for 90 days last week. Now, updated guidance from CBP reveals that some of the highest-value trade—particularly a wide range of electronics—is excluded from the reciprocal tariffs.
Come to the table. You will at some point anyway.
• ‘Not Good For China’ To Retaliate Over Tariffs – White House (RT)
The White House has warned China that further retaliation through tariff hikes would not serve Beijing’s interests, as the world’s two largest economies clash over trade. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt has stated that over 75 countries reached out to US President Donald Trump’s administration to initiate trade talks, a sign that Washington’s tariff policy is working, she argued. “The phones have been ringing off the hook to make deals,” she said on Friday during a press briefing at the White House. “These countries wisely heeded President Trump’s warning not to retaliate… and were rewarded with a 90-day pause and substantially lower reciprocal tariff rates,” she added.
In early April, Trump imposed a universal 10% tariff on all imports and higher “reciprocal” tariffs on select countries to promote domestic manufacturing and address trade imbalances. While most elevated tariffs were paused for 90 days, China was excluded from this reprieve. The total tariff on Chinese goods has been hiked to 145%. In response, China imposed a 125% tariff on US imports, while criticizing Washington’s actions as “economic bullying” and warning that continued escalations would render the US a “joke” in global economic history. When asked directly about China, Leavitt reiterated Trump’s stance. “The tariff rate on China remains where it was yesterday at the 145 percent level,” she confirmed. Beijing has signaled that its recent tariff hike might be the last, and that further increases would not make economic sense.
When asked if this meant China was backing down, Leavitt said the US president had made it very clear that “when the United States is punched, he will punch back harder.” Leavitt said the administration remains open to negotiations, claiming Trump would “be gracious if China intends to make a deal with the United States,” but added without elaborating, “If China continues to retaliate, it’s not good for China.” She also rebuffed critics who said the US administration had not pushed China hard enough with tariffs, saying “Trump is finally taking bold and courageous action.” She added that both Democrats and Republicans have talked tough on China for years, but “no other president had the courage, the work ethic, or the stamina to take on such a task.”
Pepe sees the Chinese as refined and Trump as a brute. And finance is not his forté.
• Why China Won’t Call a ‘Tariff-wielding Barbarian’ (Pepe Escobar)
The Toddler Temper Tantrum-style Trump Tariff Tizzy (TTT), now accelerated to 145% – and counting – is yet another thunderous trademark pigeon smashing the chessboard gambit. It won’t work. Trump claimed that China would call him to “make a deal”. That’s reality show territory. Reality is more like the statement by the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council: “Given that U.S. exports to China already have no market acceptability under the current tariff rates, if the U.S. further imposes additional tariffs on Chinese goods, China will simply ignore them.” Translation: keep vociferating/tariffing. We don’t care. And we will stop buying from you. Anything. The Chinese Foreign Ministry: A “tariff-wielding barbarian can never expect a call from China.” Basic numbers. China’s GDP for 2025 is projected at 5%. U.S. imports account for at best 4% of Chinese GDP. China’s share of total exports to the U.S. dropped to 13.4 per cent in 2024.
Goldman Sachs – not exactly a CCP “mouthpiece” – has just projected that TTT will cost China only 0.5% of GDP in 2025, while costing no less than 2% of U.S. GDP. Talk about blowback. Still, from now on, what matters most for Beijing is to keep diversifying the supply chain. Asia-wide, the extra wheels are in motion. President Xi Jinping will soon start an ASEAN mini-tour (Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia). The Shanghai Cooperation Organization – increasingly focused on geoeconomics – is about to meet. The EU, for all the mendacity of its “elites”, is absolutely itching to strike trade deals with China. Zhao Minghao, deputy director at the Centre for American Studies at Fudan University, in Shanghai, refers to the current incandescence as “a game of strategic resolve.” Previously, the eminent Wang Yiwei, international relations star professor at Renmin University in Beijing and an expert on the New Silk Roads, noted that the current tariff rate already made China’s exports to the U.S. “almost impossible”.
This analysis noted how China started to deal with TTT with a “courtesy before force” approach, then turned to “we don’t care”, while cultivating “the art of timing” in its asymmetric attack on U.S. stocks. A fascinating window on the real wheels of Chinese trade is offered by a timely visit to the vast Yiwu International Trade City, the largest concentration of small traders on the planet. Less than 10% of Yiwu’s phenomenal amount of business involves the U.S. Among the 75,000 business operators in Yiwu Small Commodity City, only a little over 3,000 do business with the U.S. TTT is largely the product of two crude Team Trump arrogant/ignorant Sinophobes, economic advisor Peter Navarro and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, who know less than zero about all things China. In fact it was Bessent who right at the start gave the game away:
“This was driven by the president’s strategy… You might even say that he goaded China into a bad position. They responded. They have shown themselves to the world to be the bad actors, and we are willing to cooperate with our allies and with our trading partners who did not retaliate.” A crude trap. With the sole focus on China. That had nothing to do with the initial tawdry plot line: tariffs, Mafia-style, on most of the planet, penguins included. If you don’t retaliate, fine. If you do, we hit harder.
We are now supposed to be able to tell “direct” from “indirect” talks.
Witkoff, fresh off that four hour meeting with Putin, moves on to the Iran topic, no problem.
• Trump Envoy Witkoff In First ‘Direct, Constructive’ Contact With Iran (ZH)
Not very much happened at the much-anticipated ‘indirect’ meeting between Iranian and US delegations in Oman on Saturday. While Tehran has been emphasizing the indirect nature of the dialogue, President Trump and his top officials have been calling these ‘direct’ talks. The main ‘positive’ is that the two sides didn’t yell each other out the room, or make new accusations – instead they agreed to keep the diplomatic engagement going. “Iran and the United States will hold more negotiations next week over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program, Iranian state television reported Saturday at the end of the first round of talks between the two countries since President Donald Trump returned to the White House,” The Associated Press reports as the meeting wrapped up.
As for whether they were ‘direct’ or not, Iranian state did say that Trump regional onvoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi “briefly spoke in the presence of the Omani foreign minister” at the end of the talks. This does indeed mark the first direct interaction between the Islamic Republic and the Trump administration. It is Trump during his first term who pulled the US out of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal (in April 2018). The Iranian side has announced that the next round of talks will take place April 19, in a clear sing that both sides could be ready to do a new deal. This is precisely what Trump has demanded – the inking of a new nuclear deal – while threatening military action against Tehran. Trump has also warned that Israel might ‘lead’ such strikes on nuclear facilities.
According to more details from Muscat, Oman on Saturday: American officials did not immediately acknowledge the Iranian reports, which Tehran likely speeded out to its public ahead of a possible Trump post on a social media. But declaring that the two sides spoke face-to-face — even if briefly — suggests the negotiations went well. The talks began at around 3:30 p.m. local. The two sides spoke for over two hours at a location in the outskirts of Oman, ending the talks around 5:50 p.m. local time. The convoy believed to be carrying Witkoff returned to Muscat, the capital of Oman, before disappearing into traffic around a neighborhood that is home to the U.S. Embassy. Baghaei in follow-up stated that “The objective of the Islamic Republic of Iran is very clear — we have only one goal, and that is to safeguard Iran’s national interests.”
“We are giving a genuine and honest opportunity to diplomacy, so that through dialogue, we can move forward on the nuclear issue on one hand, and more importantly for us, the lifting of sanctions,” he added. No one is in the mood for war (though perhaps Israel?). “Look, this is just a beginning. So it is natural that, at this stage, both sides will present their foundational positions through the Omani mediator,” Baghaei continued. “Therefore, we do not expect this round of negotiations to be lengthy.” Witkoff had previewed to The Wall Street Journal just ahead of the trip, “I think our position begins with dismantlement of your program. That is our position today.” He added: “Where our red line will be, there can’t be weaponization of your nuclear capability.”
However Iran has maintained all along that its program is only for peaceful nuclear energy to meet the nation’s power needs, and further several Ayatollah’s have declared nuclear weapons to be ‘unIslamic’. But recent conflict with Israel means Tehran is likely eyeing escalation of its program, possibly seeing in this the only final deterrent to Israel, and the potential for US-led regime change (as happened in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan).
“Iran and the United States held their first diplomatic engagement IN YEARS on Saturday ..”
• Iran and US Unveil Results Of Nuclear Talks (RT)
Iran and the United States held their first diplomatic engagement in years on Saturday in the Omani capital of Muscat, with discussions focused on Tehran’s nuclear program and the potential easing of US sanctions. The two-and-a-half-hour talks were led by Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi and White House Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff. Although the negotiations were conducted indirectly through Omani mediation, the heads of the two delegations – Araghchi and Witkoff – briefly spoke face-to-face in the presence of Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi after the formal talks concluded. Addressing reporters in Muscat, Araghchi described the first round of negotiations as “constructive” and held in a “calm and very respectful atmosphere.”
“No inappropriate language was used, and the two sides demonstrated their commitment to advancing the talks until the achievement of a mutually favorable agreement from an equal position,” the Iranian minister said. According to Araghchi, both sides aim to outline a general framework for a future agreement in the next round of talks. He indicated that the second meeting is scheduled for April 19, although it may not take place in Muscat. “In the next round of the talks, we will try to enter the negotiations’ agenda, which will of course have a timetable alongside it,” he said, expressing hope that the two sides could finalize a basis for starting “real talks” soon. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday night, President Donald Trump said the talks with Tehran “are going okay.” Nothing matters until you get it done, so I don’t like talking about it. But it’s going okay. The Iran situation is going pretty good.
Meanwhile, the White House emphasized that – despite Tehran’s insistence on indirect talks – Witkoff met Araghchi face-to-face, calling the “direct communication a step forward in achieving a mutually beneficial outcome.” Witkoff, a close confidant of President Trump and Washington’s lead negotiator with Moscow, has also played a prominent role in regional diplomacy. Even before Trump took office, Witkoff was credited with allegedly convincing Israel to agree to a Gaza truce. The next round of negotiations with Iran is expected to take place on April 19. While both sides have expressed cautious optimism, analysts noted that significant challenges remain. Iranian officials have publicly opposed major concessions, while President Trump has reportedly given negotiators a two-month deadline, warning of possible military action if talks fail.
“Steve Witkoff is busting his ass for President Trump.”
• Rubio and Musk Back Witkoff’s Peace Efforts (RT)
The US leader’s confidant spent over four hours behind closed doors discussing aspects of a potential settlement of the Ukraine conflict with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, before heading to Oman for high-level talks on Iran’s nuclear program on Saturday. White House special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, reportedly managed to convince Israel to agree to a Gaza truce in just one meeting – even before President Donald Trump took office – and has since become one of the key US negotiators on Ukraine.
When he traveled to Russia for the third time in two months – and a video of Witkoff smiling and shaking hands with Putin emerged on Friday – critics rushed to accuse him of everything from acting too cozy and perpetuating “Russian propaganda,” to being too “inexperienced” to conduct negotiations and effectively “taking over” the role of US Secretary of State. “People love attacking Steve Witkoff, but he has done more to advance peace negotiations & hostage releases than any of his career bureaucrat critics have done during their entire careers in the Swamp,” conservative activist Laura Loomer wrote on X, adding that “Steve Witkoff is busting his ass for President Trump.”
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) April 11, 2025
“Witkoff is great,” agreed billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, another of Trump’s closest allies, who leads his government waste-cutting task force known as DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency). US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also “100%” agreed with Loomer’s post. Witkoff’s first visit to Russia in February resulted in a high-profile prisoner exchange and paved the way for a phone call between the countries’ leaders, kickstarting the resumption of diplomatic relations. Just ahead of Witkoff’s third visit on Friday, Russia and the US conducted another prisoner swap in Abu Dhabi. The discussions between President Putin and Steve Witkoff on Friday involved “aspects of the settlement of the Ukraine conflict,” the Kremlin has announced, declining to provide further details.
We can fight over this till the end of time.
“If we called it the ‘Go to Work An Hour Earlier Act,’ rather than the ‘Sunshine Protection Act,’ no one would be voting for it.”
• Trump Urges Congress to Work Harder to Make Daylight Saving Permanent (ET)
President Donald Trump has offered his support for the “lock the clock” movement. “The House and Senate should push hard for more Daylight at the end of a day,” calling the time change “a big inconvenience and, for our government, A VERY COSTLY EVENT!!!” he wrote in an April 11 Truth Social post. Trump’s comments came a day after a bipartisan group of lawmakers conducted a hearing on making daylight saving time permanent. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing, titled “If I Could Turn Back Time: Should We Lock The Clock?” featured testimony from experts in the public and private sectors, as well as health care experts, all advocating for the push to stop the twice-yearly time change. Daylight saving time was initially a World War I strategy to reduce energy consumption in the evenings.
According to Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas), however, energy efficiency and technological advancements show that currently, the hour change no longer has cost-saving benefits. “Congress has the authority to end this outdated and harmful practice. This hearing is an excellent opportunity to examine a thoughtful and rational approach to how we manage time,” Cruz said in his opening remarks. “Whether we lock the clock on Standard Time year-round or daylight saving time, let’s put our health, the economy, and well-being first and embrace a sensible approach to time management.” Sen. Scott (R-Fla.) introduced the Sunshine Protection Act on Jan. 7 of this year. It has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation but has not yet been brought to a vote.
The senator spoke to the committee, encouraging quick action on the bill. Scott called the time change “confusing, unnecessary, and completely outdated.” He said his bipartisan legislation had the support of 17 senators and that Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. “We have a great opportunity to finally get this done with President Trump on board to lock the clock,” Scott said. Hearing witnesses included representatives from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the National Golf Course Owners Association, and the Lock the Clock Movement. All of the testimony provided supported ending the twice-yearly time change, citing health, safety, and economic concerns. While there is widespread support for locking the clock, not everyone agrees on where it should be frozen.
[..] Trump has voiced his support for more daylight at the end of the day, making daylight saving time the likely model going forward. [..] Dr. David Harkey, the president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, testified about the road safety implications of the time change to daylight saving time, saying that the change was associated with an increased risk of fatal crashes. Harkey noted that while adjusting the clock doesn’t increase the number of daylight hours, it can change how those hours align with work and school schedules. “The clearest takeaway from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s research is that there is a strong relationship between increased darkness and fatal crashes, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists,” he said.
Dr. Karen Johnson, a practicing sleep medicine physician and representative of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, cited evidence of the negative health impacts of changing the clocks, including an increased risk of chronic disease, depression, and suicide. “Permanent standard time would get more Americans to get the opportunity to improve their sleep without even trying,” Johnson said. “The sun is one of the most powerful drivers of health and well-being, but the timing of sunlight is what’s critically important.”Johnson strongly advocates for permanent standard time, saying that daylight saving time would deprive Americans of critical morning light and that while the spring clock change is bad, “permanent daylight saving time is worse.” “Permanent daylight saving time does not make days longer, nor is it the reason why people feel better in the summer,” Johnson said.“Instead, permanent daylight saving time is a hidden mandate to wake Americans up an hour earlier, rather than to their alarm clocks or the sun. “If we called it the ‘Go to Work An Hour Earlier Act,’ rather than the ‘Sunshine Protection Act,’ no one would be voting for it.”
Epic? Looks like normal procedure. It’s just that the Trump painting is different.
• What Trump Did With Obama’s White House Portrait Is Epic (Margolis)
Remember that bizarre official portrait of Barack Obama—standing stiffly in a black suit and gray tie, set against a blank white background? The 2022 painting by Robert McCurdy stirred some controversy when it was unveiled, and rightly so. At the time, I called it a perfect metaphor for Obama’s notorious narcissism. Of course he’d want his White House portrait stripped of any setting, context, or symbolism. Just him, front and center—because, in his mind, that’s all that matters. Apparently, it was featured in the White House Entrance Hall:
Forever this portrait of @barackobama hanging in the @WhiteHouse will remind America of power of hope and change. pic.twitter.com/5sBqbZdOMF
— Valerie Jarrett (@ValerieJarrett) September 7, 2022
Why was it on display at the White House? Beats me. I get that it’s Obama’s official White House portrait and all, but doesn’t it belong in a service corridor or a janitor’s closet somewhere? Well, guess what? The portrait was moved from its prime location on Friday, and this prime location is now being used for something so much better— a historic image capturing one of the most defining moments of the Trump presidency. The new portrait, unveiled Friday by the White House, shows President Trump in perhaps his most resolute moment: standing among Secret Service agents immediately after being shot in the ear during an assassination attempt, defiantly shouting “Fight, fight, fight!” It’s an image that perfectly encapsulates the fighting spirit that has defined his presidency.
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1910764795382349948?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1910764795382349948%7Ctwgr%5E71ad4a8fdabedd535f627c9cc17fdc11a18a7f09%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fmatt-margolis%2F2025%2F04%2F12%2Fwhat-trump-did-with-obamas-white-house-portrait-is-epic-n4938830
Predictably, critics immediately began claiming this was some sort of breach of protocol, suggesting the Obama portrait had been removed entirely. White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung swiftly shut down that narrative with characteristic directness:
Pipe down, moron.
The Obama portrait was just moved a few feet away. https://t.co/2K6XsHn54N
— Steven Cheung (@StevenCheung47) April 11, 2025
The Hill has more: “A portrait of President Trump that depicts him raising his fist immediately following the attempt on his life last summer at a Butler, Pa., rally is replacing an image of former President Obama in a prominent spot inside the White House. Dan Scavino, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted side-by-side photos on social media of the Trump artwork seemingly replacing the Obama painting on Friday at the bottom of the Grand Staircase. The artwork of the 47th president shows him bloodied with an American flag waving behind him after he survived the assassination attempt last July. A White House spokesperson didn’t immediately return a request for comment about the artist behind the painting. The image of Trump appeared to take the place of a portrait of Obama that was unveiled at the White House in 2022.”
The white background, the White House said at the time, “allow the viewer to establish a relationship with the subject.” The paper also notes that such portrait rearrangements are standard practice when new administrations take office. The Obama portrait remains in the Entrance Hall, just in a different location—though the symbolism of its replacement hasn’t been lost on observers from either side of the political aisle. The new portrait serves as a sobering reminder of the assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler, Pa., last July—a moment that demonstrated both the very real dangers presidents face and Trump’s remarkable resilience. While some critics on social media have promoted baseless conspiracy theories suggesting the attempt was staged, such claims ignore the tragic reality that people were killed and wounded during the incident.
“Governor Mills would have done well to adhere to the wisdom embedded in the old idiom—be careful what you wish for. Now she will see the Trump Administration in court.”
• Another District Court Judge Goes Rogue Against Trump Administration (Margolis)
The judiciary’s assault on executive power has once again reared its ugly head. A Bush-appointed federal judge just handed Maine’s radical leftist government a major victory in its crusade to destroy women’s sports. U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze federal education funding that was withheld after the state brazenly defied Trump’s executive order protecting women’s sports from the radical transgender agenda. Make no mistake about it, this is a direct challenge to President Trump’s efforts to preserve fair competition and protect female athletes. The administration had rightfully frozen funding after Maine refused to comply with basic Title IX protections that keep biological males out of women’s sports.
“The state of Maine requests a temporary restraining order to enjoin the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Secretary of Agriculture from terminating, freezing, or otherwise interfering with the State’s access to federal funds based on alleged Title IX violations without following the process required by federal statute,” the ruling states. “The court orders the defendants to immediately unfreeze and release to the state of Maine any federal funding that they have frozen or failed or refused to pay because of the State’s alleged failure to comply with the requirements of Title IX.” Barack Obama unilaterally reinterpreted Title IX in his final months in office to include “gender identity,” Donald Trump reversed that policy, and Joe Biden promptly restored the Obama standard. Trump reversed it again and legislation codifying that Title IX doesn’t apply to “gender identity” is stalled in Congress because Democrats blocked it in the Senate last month.
Have you ever noticed how the judiciary constantly tries to hide behind procedure when substantive arguments fail them? In 2020, we saw the courts claim that the Trump campaign didn’t have standing to challenge election results over suspected fraud over claims of lack of standing. Judge Woodcock claimed the USDA under Secretary Brooke Rollins didn’t follow proper protocols, completely ignoring the real issue at hand: Maine’s assault on women’s athletics. The state of Maine argued that Secretary Rollins “cannot simply declare that the [s]tate of Maine is in violation of Title IX and terminate federal funding” because “Congress has expressly declared that to terminate or refuse to continue federal financial assistance to a recipient, the agency must first hold a hearing and then make an ‘express finding on the record’ that the recipient violated Title IX.”
The Trump administration wasn’t having any of it. Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor fired back with both barrels: “The Department has given Maine every opportunity to come into compliance with Title IX, but the state’s leaders have stubbornly refused to do so, choosing instead to prioritize an extremist ideological agenda over their students’ safety, privacy, and dignity,” Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement. “The Maine Department of Education will now have to defend its discriminatory practices before a Department administrative law judge and in a federal court against the Justice Department. Governor Mills would have done well to adhere to the wisdom embedded in the old idiom—be careful what you wish for. Now she will see the Trump Administration in court.”
This is just the latest example of activist judges running interference for the radical left’s gender ideology. Governor Janet Mills and her administration are so devoted to their extremist agenda that they’re willing to sacrifice the rights of female athletes just to push their transgender narrative. In addition to the sports controversy, the Department of Education launched an investigation into Maine schools for hiding student gender transitions from parents. The battle lines are clearly drawn. On one side, we have the Trump administration fighting to protect women’s sports and parental rights. On the other, we have leftist ideologues willing to sacrifice both on the altar of gender ideology. Something tells me this fight is far from over.
“..one of the “Easter eggs”..
“..take control of a natural gas pipeline from Russian energy giant Gazprom..”
• US Wants Control Of Key Gas Pipeline In Ukraine – Reuters (RT)
The administration of US President Donald Trump wants Kiev to give Washington control of a pipeline through which Russian gas reaches the EU, according to Reuters. The request is one of the “Easter eggs” contained in the latest draft of the minerals deal that Washington is pressuring the government of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to sign, the agency claimed in an article on Friday. Reuters said, citing an informed source, that the text of the agreement put together by Washington includes a “demand that the US government’s International Development Finance Corporation take control of a natural gas pipeline from Russian energy giant Gazprom across Ukraine to Europe.” No gas has been sent through Gazprom’s pipeline since the start of year due to Ukraine refusing to prolong its transit deal with the Russian company.
On Friday, US and Ukrainian officials met in Washington to discuss the deal granting the Americans access to Ukraine’s mineral resources, including rare-earth metals, with the talks going on in a “very antagonistic” environment, according to the source. The strains between the sides stemmed from “maximalist” demands in the latest draft of the agreement, which the Trump administration presented to Kiev last month, the agency’s interlocutor explained. The Ukrainian authorities have hired a US-British law firm, Hogan Lovells, to work as an outside adviser on the deal, the source added. The US came up with harsher terms after Zelensky refused to sign the initial agreement during his White House meeting in late February.
The visit ended with a public spat between the US and Ukrainian leaders, during which Trump accused his guest of being ungrateful for Washington’s assistance during the conflict with Russia and not wanting peace. According to Reuters, the latest draft of the deal would give the US privileged access to Ukraine’s mineral deposits and require Kiev to place in a joint investment fund all income from the exploitation of its natural resources. The agreement does not provide the country with American security guarantees, which the Ukrainian government considers a priority. Trump, who claims that the agreement would enable the US taxpayers to recoup funds spent by the previous administration of Joe Biden on aiding Kiev, warned earlier this month that Zelensky would have “big, big problems” if he backs out of it.
“Sensible observers have long predicted it, and now it is becoming ever more obvious: Freezing the AfD out only serves to make it stronger.”
“Germans have felt for a while already that they are in dire trouble; and a preponderant majority thinks that that is where they will be stuck under new old management as well..”
• Why The AfD Is Destined For The German Government (Amar)
Germany has an undeserved reputation for dour rationality and lacking an appreciation of the absurd. In reality, however, Germany is a – for want of nicer terms – very counterintuitive country. If you are running a regime in Kiev (at least according to the official story) and blow up Germany’s vital energy infrastructure, Germans will say thank you and throw money and arms at you, while also helping you blame someone else (the Russians, of course: Germany has never been an imaginative country). If you are in Washington and certainly had a hand in blowing up that infrastructure, and then go on to fleece the Germans by selling LNG at a high cost and promoting their deindustrialization by filching their companies, good Germans get very, very angry – at China.
If you happen to be the single most popular and perfectly legal political party in Germany, get ready to never be allowed to actually participate in governing. Because Germany is also a country in which that single most popular party – the Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, commonly known simply as AfD) – is locked out of building governing coalitions. By definition. That system is called a “firewall” – against that nasty most popular party that makes life so difficult for all those other, no longer popular parties. It has absolutely no basis in the constitution or in law. Come to think of it, as the “firewall” systematically and deliberately treats the votes of AfD voters as somehow less effective than those of others, it may well be the “firewall” itself that is unconstitutional, at least in spirit if not even by the letter of the law. So much for Germany, the country that allegedly loves order and rules.
In reality, the “firewall” amounts to a dirty political cartel and a form of disenfranchisement: The traditional parties, feeling threatened by the insurgent AfD have simply decided that they do not care what the voters say and won’t have anything to do with it. Since German governments are virtually always based on coalitions, which means that the AfD and its voters are treated as inferior. That this means that, as of now, in particular voters in the former East Germany are subject to this kind of discrimination, adding a West-East aspect to it that sits very badly with talk about German unity.
To get one thing out of the way: For now, it is only one poll that shows the AfD in the lead; other polls still have it in (barely) second place after the mainstream conservatives of the CDU/CSU bloc (which, in reality, functions as one party) of soon-to-be chancellor Friedrich Merz. But these differences are irrelevant. What matters is that the AfD’s rising trend is unbroken. That is definitely a blow to Merz, even before he has officially assumed office, as international observers are noting. Especially in view of the fact that Merz’s own poll numbers are cratering at the same time. Yet there is a broader point, too: The whole “firewall” strategy is malfunctioning extremely badly. Sensible observers have long predicted it, and now it is becoming ever more obvious: Freezing the AfD out only serves to make it stronger.
One thing that does not make Berlin’s ruling parties, the CDU and SPD, any more popular is that they have concluded their negotiations on how to divvy up the spoils of ministries and other goodies. Indeed, it is extremely embarrassing for the new governing coalition of conservatives and Social-Democrats (SPD) that the most recent AfD milestone breakthrough is happening now. It is a coincidence from hell: there they are, the traditional parties, seemingly safe behind their “firewall” and all ready to go, and the voters – uncouth as they can be – show them just how unpopular they are. Germans expect little from them, even now: A fresh poll shows that two thirds do not believe that things will change under the new coalition of tired old parties.
Note that most Germans have been deeply unhappy with the status quo, as we also know from recent polls: In February, Ipsos found that the general mood was “as bad as never before.” Only 17 percent of citizens – less than a fifth – believed their country was “on a good trajectory.” The other 83 percent were not indifferent or neutral but felt Germany was on the “wrong” trajectory. Even for a nation with something of a culture of angst and doom, those are atrocious figures. Hence, expecting no change now amounts to deep pessimism: Germans have felt for a while already that they are in dire trouble; and a preponderant majority thinks that that is where they will be stuck under new old management as well.
“They have failed to strengthen security and stability. The Euro-Atlantic structures have ultimately succeeded in precisely the opposite, stoking international tensions and “remilitarizing Europe..”
• Euro-Atlantic Community Gearing For War – Lavrov (RT)
The international structures centered in the Euro-Atlantic have failed to deliver stability and security to the region, and now the members of this community are preparing for a new major war, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. The top diplomat delivered the remarks on Saturday during a Q&A session at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum in Türkiye. Lavrov criticized what he described as “the Euro-Atlantic structures,” including the European Union and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), stating that the groups have ultimately failed to deliver on their proclaimed goals. “The security issues after the Second World War in our common region were defined in terms of Euro-Atlantic logic. NATO and the EU were essentially European,” Lavrov said.
“The EU recently signed an agreement with NATO. The EU is now part of the Euro-Atlantic policy – there is no doubt about that – including making its territory available for the alliance’s plans to move to the East, to the South, I don’t know where else,” he added, apparently referring to the Joint Declaration on EU-NATO Cooperation inked in early 2023. I believe all these Euro-Atlantic structures have failed. They have failed to strengthen security and stability. The Euro-Atlantic structures have ultimately succeeded in precisely the opposite, stoking international tensions and “remilitarizing Europe,” Lavrov suggested. “All the efforts of this Euro-Atlantic community are focused on preparing for a new war. Germany, together with France and Great Britain, are leading this process,” he added. Lavrov’s remarks come after a meeting of the so-called “coalition of the willing,” a group of Ukraine’s backers predominantly consisting of NATO and EU nations, held earlier this week.
The defense chiefs from the member states discussed a potential deployment of a “peacekeeping” force to Ukraine, with the idea spearheaded by the UK and France. The latest gathering failed to yield any tangible result, with EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas admitting that “different member states have different opinions and the discussions are still ongoing.” While UK Secretary of Defense John Healey insisted that the group’s were “well developed,” multiple of his counterparts publicly questioned the idea, raising concerns about the goals, mission and mandate of the potential deployment. Moscow has repeatedly warned the West against deploying troops to Ukraine under any pretext, specifically objecting to forces from any NATO countries ending up in the country. Last month, former Russian President and the deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, said that the potential emergence of any NATO “peacekeepers” in Ukraine would mean a war between the bloc and Russia.
“The Pentagon’s academic program studied dissent, protest, and radicalization. Now it’s being replaced by a private AI surveillance network run in total secrecy..”
• Steele Dossier Was Discredited In 2017 — But Sold To The Public Anyway (MPN)
On March 25, Donald Trump signed an executive order declassifying all documentation related to Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s 2016 investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. The order has unexpectedly resurrected buried documents that cast new light on the Steele dossier — and when it was known to be false. It is unclear what new information will be revealed, given substantial previous declassifications, two special counsel investigations, multiple congressional inquiries, several civil lawsuits, and a scathing Justice Department internal review. It has long been confirmed the FBI relied heavily on Steele’s discredited dossier to secure warrants against Trump aide Carter Page, despite grave internal concerns about its origins and reliability, and Steele’s sole “subsource” for all its lurid allegations openly admitted in interviews with the Bureau he could offer no corroboration for any of the dossier’s claims.
Such inconvenient facts and damning disclosures were nonetheless concealed from the public for several years following the dossier’s January 2017 publication by BuzzFeed News, now defunct. In the intervening time, it became the central component of the Russiagate narrative, a conspiracy theory that was a major rallying point for countless mainstream journalists, pundits, public figures, Western intelligence officials, and elected lawmakers. In the process, Steele attained mythological status. For example, NBC News dubbed the former MI6 operative “a real-life James Bond.” Primetime news networks dedicated countless hours to the topic, while leading media outlets invested enormous time, energy and money into verifying the dossier’s claims without success. Undeterred, legacy reporters relied on a roster of mainstream “Russia experts,” including prominent British and U.S. military and intelligence veterans, and briefings from anonymous officials to reinforce Steele’s credibility and the likely veracity of his dossier. As award-winning investigative journalist Aaron Maté told MintPress News:
“Media outlets served as unquestioning stenographers for Steele. If his dossier’s claims themselves weren’t sufficient to dismiss it with ridicule, another obvious marker should have set off alarms. Reading the dossier chronologically, a clear pattern emerges – many of its most explosive claims are influenced by contemporary media reporting. For instance, it was only after Wikileaks published the DNC emails in July 2016 that the dossier mentioned them. This is just one example demonstrating the dossier’s true sources were overactive imaginations and mainstream news outlets.” Even more damningly, leaked documents reviewed by MintPress News reveal that while Western journalists were hard at work attempting to validate Steele’s dossier and elevating the MI6 spy to wholly undeserved pillars of probity, the now-defunct private investigations firm GPW Group was, in early 2017, secretly unearthing vast amounts of damaging material that fatally undermined the dossier’s content, and comprehensively dismantling Steele’s previously unimpeachable public persona. It remains speculative what impact the firm’s findings might have had if they had been released publicly at the time.
The Pentagon’s academic program studied dissent, protest, and radicalization. Now it’s being replaced by a private AI surveillance network run in total secrecy., academic surveillance programs, AI in warfare, AI-powered social control, DARPA social science, military surveillance, Minerva Initiative, MKUltra, Pentagon AI research, Stargate, Stargate AI program, Trump AI initiative, U.S. GPW’s probe of Steele and his dossier was commissioned by Carter Ledyard & Milburn, a law firm representing Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, and German Khan — owners of Alfa Bank. The dossier leveled several serious allegations against them. The trio purportedly possessed a “kompromat” on Vladimir Putin, delivered “illicit cash” to him throughout the 1990s, and routinely provided the Kremlin with “informal advice” on foreign policy — “especially about the U.S.” Meanwhile, Alfa Bank supposedly served as a clandestine back channel between Trump and Moscow.
“In order to build a profile of Christopher Steele…as well as the broader operations of both Orbis Business Intelligence and Fusion GPS,” which commissioned the dossier on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, GPW consulted “a variety of sources.” This included “U.S. intelligence figures,” various journalists, “private intelligence subcontractors” who had previously worked with Steele and Orbis, and “contacts who knew the man from his time with [MI6]…and, in one instance, directly oversaw his work.” The picture that emerged of Steele sharply contrasted with his mainstream portrayal as a “superstar.” One operative who “acted as Steele’s manager when he began working with [MI6] and later supervised him at two further points” described him as “average, middle of the road,” stating he had never “shined” in any of his postings. Another suggested Steele’s founding of Orbis “was the source of some incredulity” within MI6 due to his underwhelming professional history and perceived lack of “commercial nous.”
Yet another suggested Steele’s production of the dossier reflected his lack of “big picture judgment.” Sources consulted by GPW were even more critical of Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson. One journalist described him as a “hack” without “a license or the contacts to do…actual investigations,” instead outsourcing “all” work ostensibly conducted by his firm to others while skimming commissions. They also “openly admitted” to disliking Simpson, described by GPW as “not an uncommon attitude amongst those to whom we spoke.”
Trump is quite a bit smarter than Maher.
• Bill Maher Says ‘Mind Blown’ After Meeting With Trump (ZH)
While Bill Maher may change opinions like a windsock depending on who he’s pandering to, the “Real Time” host told his mostly-Democrat audience that Donald Trump, aka Hitler-Stalin-Mussolini, was “gracious and measured” at their recent meeting last week. We know, duh… but considering the influence Maher has on the left, his comments are interesting nonetheless. “You can hate me for it, but I’m not a liar. Trump was gracious and measured,” Maher said. “And why isn’t that in other settings- I don’t know, and I can’t answer, and it’s not my place to answer. I’m just telling you what I saw, and I wasn’t high.” Maher said the meeting, brokered by their mutual friend Kid Rock, wasn’t “some kind of summit.”
“I have no power. I’m a fucking comedian, and he’s the most powerful leader in the world!” he continued. “I’m not the leader of anything, except maybe a contingent of centrist-minded people who think there’s got to be a better way of running this country than hating each other every minute.” Maher admitted that he went in ready for a fight – only to find Trump absolutely charming. “Everything I’ve not liked about him was, I swear to God, absent. At least on this night, with this guy,” Maher, 69, said – seemingly shocked at his own admission. “I never felt I had to walk on eggshells around him. And honestly, I voted for Clinton and Obama, but I would never feel comfortable talking to them the way I was able to talk with Donald Trump,” he continued, adding “Make of it what you will.”
“I’ve had so many conversations with prominent people who are much less connected. People that don’t look you in the eye. People that don’t really listen because they just want to get to their next thing. People whose response to things you say just doesn’t track. None of that with him,” Maher continued. “Mostly he steered the conversation to ‘what do you think about this?’ I know. Your mind is blown. So is mine.” Maher added that Trump gave him a bunch of MAGA hats, which are stored in the same room where former President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky engaged in extracurricular activities. At one point in the dinner, Maher says Trump asked him about his thoughts on the Iran nuclear situation. After he allegedly gave Trump shit for eliminating the Obama-era nuclear deal, Trump “didn’t get mad or call me a left-wing lunatic. He took it in.”
According to Maher, Trump used the word ‘lost’ in relation to the 2020 presidential election. “And I distinctly remember saying, ‘Wow, I never thought I’d hear you say that.’ He didn’t get mad. He’s much more self-aware than he lets on in public,” Maher said, adding that in private, Trump is just normal. “Just for starters, he laughs,” Maher stated in disbelief. “I’d never seen him laugh in public. But he does — including at himself — and it’s not fake. Believe me, as a comedian of forty years, I know a fake laugh when I hear it.” Watch:
Twelve days ago, I had dinner with President Trump, a dinner that my friend @KidRock set up because we share the belief that there has to be something better than hurling insults from 3000 miles away. pic.twitter.com/KE2t2eyBkI
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) April 12, 2025
Meanwhile, journalist Laura Loomer is jumping all over conservative “Bill Maher Simps,” while she says she had “a productive week in Cali, which included my deposition of Bill Maher,” who she’s suing for defamation.
Increase
What caused all these things to skyrocket since 1990? pic.twitter.com/tbiZsSGiSH
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) April 12, 2025
Cholesterol
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1910755326653059144
RFK
https://twitter.com/liz_churchill10/status/1911150761905717473
Babysitters
https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/1910846503096111548
Cheetah
Cheetah introduces a photographer to her little onespic.twitter.com/wILimDqD2E
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) April 12, 2025
Elephamily
Entire elephant family works together to rescue baby from strong river current pic.twitter.com/goh7JaN1XC
— Gabriele Corno (@Gabriele_Corno) April 12, 2025
Bamba
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1911059202795098239
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
