Menu Icon

Debt Rattle July 15 2026

Jul 152026
 
 July 15, 2026  Posted by at 9:47 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  27 Responses »


Claude Monet Japanese Footbridge 2 1899(?)


• Trump Backs Off 20% Fee Plan For Hormuz (ZH)
• The US Needs to Hit Iran Harder to End the War (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Iran War 3.0 (Alastair Crooke)
• Two Ever-Widening Wars Bring World to Armageddon Moment (Paul Craig Roberts)
• UK Government Lobbied For Putting Migrants And Trans People On BANKNOTES (MN)
• Ann Widdecombe Murder was Political Assassination by Far-Left Extremist (CTH)
• Trump’s White House Front Entrance Improvements (O’Brien)
• Trump Pays E jean Carroll $5m In Damages Over Sexual Abuse And Defamation (BBC)
• Kamala Harris’s Humiliating WNBA Speech Is Painful to Watch (Margolis)
• Ro Khanna Launches Bid as Class Warrior with Expanded Wealth Tax Pledge (Turley)
• War of Words Turns Ugly After EU Migration Vote (RT)
• US House To Vote On Bill Making Daylight Savings Time Permanent (JTN)
• Bill to End Birthright Citizenship by Following Kavanaugh Roadmap (JTN)
• The Digital Euro: Control and the End of Financial Privacy (Daniel Lacalle)
• Mick Jagger Defends Elon Musk (MN)

 


 

https://twitter.com/KellyMarieBrady/status/2076691002186989753?s=20 https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/2076772464701440453?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2076696919640858730?s=20

 


 


See what fits. Trump does that in the open.

• Trump Backs Off 20% Fee Plan For Hormuz (ZH)

It’s the return of another TACO Tuesday as President Trump in a lengthy Truth Social missive appears to have reversed his plan to collect a 20% of cargo fee for international vessels wishing to transit the Strait of Hormuz. “Oil is flowing like never before,” he began (except it’s not…), before writing, “Based on highly productive conversations with Middle East leadership, I have decided to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States. Those Investments will be MASSIVE but, at the same time, extraordinarily good for them, and their future.” He echoed the same in follow-up with reporters at the White House:


So Gulf allies, and likely officials within his own cabinet, have talked Trump out of the 20% collection scheme idea, which would have likely in the end just shifted leverage back over to Iran, given its own much cheaper passage protocol scheme.

US OIL PARES GAINS, WTI TRADES NEAR $78/BBL

Read more …

“We did the hard work. They’re no longer a threat. We’ve taken out their 47-year, half-a-trillion-dollar military investment.”:

“They don’t ever hit Israel because Israel has announced that their response will be disproportionate and aimed at the surviving government.”

• The US Needs to Hit Iran Harder to End the War (Victor Davis Hanson)

We’re now in the 134th day of, quote-unquote, “the war with Iran.” I’m speaking on July 12. But we got to remember that we really only had March and April. We started on Feb. 28, about 38 days until we stopped fighting on April 8. So, we’re really talking about 90-plus days of negotiations and 38 days of actual fighting. That should tell us something about what the Iranian strategy is. They want to talk, talk, talk, and they do not want to fight, fight, fight. We want to fight and get over and go home, and they don’t. And they … because of the length of the negotiation vis-a-vis the kinetic part, they may be in an advantaged position.


Part of the problem is that we have knocked out at least three centers of the four of their government. The theocracy with the death of Khamenei and the disabling of his son and killing of many of the others is sort of inert. We’ve taken out a lot of the heads of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. There’s a lot of military planners that were central to Iran’s military, industrial, nuclear complex that are gone, and we have a few elected leaders. And so that’s who we’re dealing with, but we’re not sure if they are good cops and the rest of what’s left are bad cops, or if anybody’s any cop.

So, where do we go from here? What’s happening right now is we have no war and no peace. That is about every day and a half or every other day, what’s left of the bad cops—that is, the theocracy, the military, and the Guard Corps—freelance, and they hit one of the Gulf states or a tanker. Notice they don’t ever hit Israel. They don’t ever hit Israel because Israel has announced that their response will be disproportionate and aimed at the surviving government. So, they don’t do that. We haven’t said that. But every other day they do that, and now we’re starting to respond disproportionately, and that means for every 50 or so strikes, we have 120 or 130. But that itself will go on and on and on.

What we need to do is to find a way to do two things: one, stop their ability to make any strikes, and that can be accomplished in various ways. We can either stop all of their supplies, and I mean all of them. That is, we can take out their airlift capacity, their airport. We can take out all the rail lines over land to China. We can take out the Caspian Sea ports. We cannot allow any seaborne traffic into Iran. And we can take out their electrical generation plant, short out the grid, take out more. We can stop their ability to make war rather than just hunt for an individual target, a missile target or a launcher pad or something like that.

And then we have to make the conditions for which we can go home. We did the hard work. They’re no longer a threat. We’ve taken out their 47-year, half-a-trillion-dollar military investment. There’s a lot of other interests that would like the Gulf open, particularly the Gulf Council states, the Europeans, the Japanese, the Chinese, South Koreans. So, we need to make Iran so weak, if they do not want to negotiate, and we’re not going to get into this tit-for-tat cycle, that these other countries will be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

Read more …

Alastair Crooke is no fan of Trump. That’s why he sees the US losing vs Iran.

To make his point, he drags US polls and even the AI market into the equation. But what have they to do with the Iran war?

“Essentially, Trump has plunged into an escalatory trap, seemingly in part out of pique at his collapsing polls at home.”

Has anyone else seen those collapsing polls? I haven’t. Anyone?

“.. the “hurt” being experienced by Trump back home in the context of his fading political prospects, but also by his dislike for any personal humiliation.”

..”his fading political prospects”, “personal humiliation”: we’re not watching the same movie.

“A downturn in the AI market would send shockwaves throughout the entire economic ecosystem.

A market downturn in the US – exacerbated by an energy crisis – could spell disaster for Trump’s midterm hopes.”

I give up.

• Iran War 3.0 (Alastair Crooke)

When the US Navy, in co-ordination with Qatar and Oman, tried to slip a convoy of four vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, via Omani waters, last Tuesday night – rather than pass via Iran’s officially approved route – Trump may have imagined (or been told) that with the massive funeral for the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei under way, that Iran would not react as the US Navy attempted to force open an American corridor. Trump however, misread the Iranian jibe – Hormuz is its “atomic weapon.” Iran will not relinquish it.


Trump insists – in clear contradiction to the terms set out in paragraph five of the MoU – that Iran has no right to interfere with any ship trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Iran nonetheless is acting within the terms of the agreed de-escalation framework, and has warned repeatedly that it would strike any vessel circumventing the Iranian control mechanism. Iran responded directly to Trump’s challenge to Iranian control of the Strait by striking two vessels with missiles and a third with an armed drone. A fourth Qatari-owned tanker, laden with liquefied natural gas, was set ablaze, forcing its crew to abandon the stricken vessel.

These Iranian ripostes provoked Trump to order American air strikes against Iranian targets; to reimpose sanctions on the Islamic Republic’s oil exports; and to revoke the MoU framework he had signed with what he called the “Iranian scum” – thus ending the ceasefire. “We hit them hard last night,” Trump said at the NATO summit in Ankara. “We will probably hit them hard again tonight.” Trump did hit Iran again Wednesday night – even though Iran had not attacked another vessel seeking to by-pass the Iranian corridor. In response, Iran launched ballistic missiles and drones at US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Muwaffaq Al-Salti airbase in Jordan.

Vice-President Vance is saying to Iran, “If you try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the American military will respond. It’s that simple” – i.e. Iran either keeps the Strait fully open to all, or the US will keep hitting it, as it did on Tuesday night. Iran insists that it is the US that has violated the MoU and (via the spokesman for Iran’s Parliamentary National Security Committee) warns that further attacks by the US on Iran will be met by a comprehensive all-out surprise offensive by Iran – and potentially by other options too, such as an Iranian withdrawal from the NPT, changing the country’s nuclear doctrine, and closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait alongside the Strait of Hormuz.

So, Vice-President Vance is saying if Iran restricts Hormuz (i.e. it stays open to friendly states’ vessels) the US will escalate. And Iran is responding to this threat by warning that it will escalate militarily – two strikes for every one American strike – and that they may also turn to new doctrines of warfare. Essentially, Trump has plunged into an escalatory trap, seemingly in part out of pique at his collapsing polls at home. He did, however, directly put himself in this situation by trying to “act cute” during the Khamenei funeral pre-occupations in order to try to gain a “quick win.”

How long will this escalatory episode last? Certainly, it will not lead to the opening of the Strait; nor bring a return of the status quo ante that preceded the war. As long as Iran maintains its ability to exert control over Hormuz, there is no basis to assume that the situation will return to what it was. On the contrary, and more likely, the crisis will accelerate the onset of looming global economic crisis that could last until the economic pain becomes acute, as the drawdown on sour crude continues – and as the effects on the real economy in the West become visible. With shortages of munitions and the drawdown on air assets from the Middle East already beginning, Trump probably lacks the wherewithal to go full “Iran War 3.0.”

[..] It is not certain that this new US policy will work. The world is changing rapidly. Their expected triumph of Israel over the Middle East has resulted in failure. Trump’s MoU ploy to open Hormuz likely will fail, too. The connected war on Russia and the siege of China are faltering too – and Israel’s (until now unassailable) hold over the US is in question too. A senior US democrat, Rahm Emanuel, and potential 2028 US Democratic presidential candidate, spoke in Israel yesterday; he warned in no uncertain terms that Israel “has lost the world’s support, become a ‘regional pariah,’ [and that its] alliance with the US is ‘at a crossroads’.”

And finally, a “black swan” now can be observed swimming in increasingly sunlit waters – Eric Katz writing in Notus writes that, “a draft report inside the US Treasury Department is set to warn of the risks posed by the artificial intelligence market, likening key aspects of it to the dotcom bubble that upended the US economy when it burst in the early 2000s.” Treasury analysts wrote – “Career Treasury analysts found that AI firms are more deeply entrenched in the US economy than their dotcom predecessors and pose significant risk to the entire system if financial conditions change, productivity goals are missed or various choke points stymie growth.”

A downturn in the AI market would send shockwaves throughout the entire economic ecosystem. A market downturn in the US – exacerbated by an energy crisis – could spell disaster for Trump’s midterm hopes.

Read more …

Over the top: “Never in history has a country’s leader displayed such refusal to recognize an existential threat.”

“..In my thinking at this time, the world without its wish is heading into two big wars.

• Two Ever-Widening Wars Bring World to Armageddon Moment (Paul Craig Roberts)

“Russia open to Turkey selling S-400 air defense systems to UAE, sources say” “The Russian government views the potential sale of S-400 air defense systems currently operated by Turkey to the United Arab Emirates in a “positive light”, multiple sources familiar with the issue told Middle East Eye, while cautioning that negotiations have yet to be completed.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirms that the Kremlin is discussing with Turkey the transfer of the S-400 Russian air defense system to Iran’s enemies. This shows you what a piece of shit ally Russia is. Money comes first and nothing else matters. Helmer quotes a Russian source:


” I expect no limits to what the Kremlin will stoop in their money-making now. You can expect, a year from now, Russian S-400s and 500s will be sold direct to the Emiratis and Saudis. No doubt about it. Strictly speaking, the Turks do not have to do a resale. They will say they are giving military defensive cover, jointly with Europe and the US, to the Arabs; the Russians will go along with that.” My understanding is that the operative range of the S-400 covers the entire Persian Gulf and likely Israel and Jordan as well. In other words, the S-400 completely disarms Iran.

Here is my speculation about how this surprising deal is being put together. When Turkey purchased the S-400, a purchase that is inexplicable. Why would the Kremlin deliver the technology of the world standard–the S-400–to a member of NATO? Is the answer the stupid Kremlin chasing money at the cost of Russia’s existence? Helmer’s sources think so. Or was it an ill-conceived plot to bribe Turkey away from NATO into Russia’s orbit? If so, it did not work.

Putin has needlessly, gratuitously, left Russia mired in a 4.5 year old conflict that due to Putin’s irresolution and prevarication has moved from Donbas to deep inside Russia. Putin now faces state-of-the-art drones produced in Germany and transported without Russian interference to Ukraine where they are guided by US targeting systems into attacks on Russian refineries and fuel storage. Russia has been sufficiently damaged that Russia now must import diesel fuel. Putin pretends that this is not war, merely a terrorist operation. Never in history has a country’s leader displayed such refusal to recognize an existential threat.

Putin has been trying to stay afloat by riding two contending horses. One is the horse of the Russian military and patriotic citizens. The other horse is the horse of the Russian oligarchs whose wealth was stolen from the state during the period of the Soviet collapse. My solution, which I presented to the Soviet Union in its last year was not followed, and a few seized the wealth of the country. Those who stole Russia’s wealth were the West’s allies against Russia from day one. And these pro-American, not pro-Russian, interests are 50% of the advice that the Kremlin receives.

Here is what is what is happening. Krill Dmitriev has told Putin that the more the Kremlin sucks up to Trump, the more likely the Ukrainian Conflict will be reconciled by mutually profitable business deals, which is the aim of the Russian Oligarchs. The point was made to Putin that protecting Israel and the American Gulf states that host the US attacks on Iran from attack by Iranian missiles wins brownie points that can free Russia from the sanctions on its oligarchs..

Where does all this go? In my thinking at this time, the world without its wish is heading into two big wars. All of humanity will be destroyed. No where in the governments of the world is there any capability to comprehend the reality that confronts them. Each dumbshit government has its own narrative, and none of them are correct. Where are the leaders of humanity? Why are there none?

Read more …

Ungovernable. You can’t make plans like this and then move on.

• UK Government Lobbied For Putting Migrants And Trans People On BANKNOTES (MN)

The UK’s own Cabinet Office pushed hard to overhaul banknotes by elevating LGBT+ and ethnic minority figures, claiming historic greats like Winston Churchill gave an “incomplete picture” of British identity. This push came just before the Bank of England decided to ditch those same towering historical figures for images of hedgehogs and foxes. This latest revelation exposes the ideological machinery at work inside Whitehall. While the public recoiled at the idea of swapping national heroes for animals, government officials were actively lobbying for even more radical identity-driven changes.


In a letter to the Bank of England’s chief cashier last summer, officials from the Office for Equality and Opportunity – part of the Cabinet Office and led by Bridget Phillipson – argued that current historical figures reflected “limited dimensions of British identity.” They called for “greater representation of women, disabled people, ethnic minority communities and LGBT+ individuals” to “send a strong signal of progress and recognition.”

The whole saga is particularly ridiculous because the core argument for axing Churchill and other giants was that they were supposedly too “ideologically divisive” for modern Britain. Yet officials simultaneously pushed to install figures selected explicitly through the lens of identity politics and group representation – an approach guaranteed to be far more polarizing in practice. It reveals the selective outrage: traditional British heroes are labeled divisive for their achievements, while injecting contemporary activism onto the currency is framed as unifying “progress.”

The intervention has sparked accusations that Labour elements conspired to sideline Britain’s most celebrated figures. Shadow minister Alex Burghart slammed the move: “Labour tried to deny any involvement in the cancellation of Winston Churchill and other British heroes. But government officials have been caught red-handed conspiring with the Bank of England to remove them from our banknotes.” He added that banknotes “should feature the greatest Britons – the historic figures that unite our country. They shouldn’t be chosen on the basis of Labour’s equality laws.”

This diversity drive unfolded alongside the Bank of England’s decision to replace Churchill on the £5 note, Jane Austen on the £10, J.M.W. Turner on the £20, and Alan Turing on the £50 with images of British animals, plants, and landscapes. The Bank cited a public consultation where a majority favored nature themes, partly for security reasons on new polymer notes. Critics have pointed out the irony, noting Alan Turing – a gay war hero – was already featured, yet the push continued for broader “under-represented” groups. Suggestions reportedly included figures tied to events like the Empire Windrush. This fits a longer pattern of institutional discomfort with Britain’s historic icons. Our earlier coverage highlighted the absurdity of trading Churchill for hedgehogs and the broader erosion of national symbols.

A serious nation honors the leaders who defended its freedom and shaped its character – not because they tick modern demographic boxes, but because their achievements built the country whose currency circulates today. Swapping out the likes of Churchill for foxes and badgers, while civil servants agitate for identity politics on money, signals a profound loss of confidence. Britain’s history is not a problem to be diluted. It is the foundation worth preserving.

https://twitter.com/ColinKi54036475/status/2076414880307974512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2076414880307974512%7Ctwgr%5Ec3aa6dba427f4106565dfe9c313c6b6c3629a430%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmodernity.news%2F2026%2F07%2F13%2Fthe-uk-government-lobbied-for-putting-migrants-and-trans-people-on-banknotes%2F
Read more …

Pay attention Britain.

“.. the reality was her murderer drove over five hours to kill her. “

• Ann Widdecombe Murder was Political Assassination by Far-Left Extremist (CTH)

78-year-old Ann Widdecombe was a well-known conservative in British politics. She was a staunch defender of free speech, a direct opponent to leftist cultural Marxism and an advocate for the commonsense Reform Party. Widdecombe was against abortion, gay rights, transgender advocacy and wokism writ large. Ms. Widdecombe was beaten to death in her home Wednesday July 8th around 12:30pm by an assailant who drove 270 miles to kill her. Immediately the police said her murder was not politically motivated and not connected to foreign or domestic terrorism.


Despite the credulous claim that her brutal murder was not political in nature, the reality was her murderer drove over five hours to kill her. This was an obvious premeditated, calculated and targeted murder. However, the politically correct leftist media and political institutions within U.K. government, were desperate in trying to deny the obvious. Yesterday, the British Counterterrorism Police took over the investigation. “Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, said that as a result of “new information and evidence,” specialist counterterrorism officers were “now leading on the investigation into the horrific murder.”” {citation} Today, it is admitted that her killer had a library of communist and Marxist ideology.


(DAILY MAIL) – […] Yesterday the probe was taken over by Counterterrorism Policing South East which announced the suspect had been re-arrested on suspicion of commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The suspect, who remains in custody, was the son of a teaching assistant. Relatives said he had become reclusive after the sudden death of his engineer father last year. […] In a dramatic escalation, counter terrorism officers yesterday took over the investigation into the killing of the former Tory minister. It came after the discovery of Russian communist literature and other items of political ideology at the home of the suspected killer. […] Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed yesterday that the British white suspect, who the Mail is not naming, was not known to the Government’s deradicalisation programme, Prevent. Police are making inquiries about his mental health. (more)

Leftism is a violently dangerous ideology. Those who believe in Diversity, Equity, Inclusion as well as cultural rights and genderisms are intolerant in the extreme. Their ideological arguments do not stand up against scrutiny, natural laws or historic outcomes. As a result, their emotions drive the internal sense of self-hate outward to attack others. These are deeply disturbed, emotionally unstable people. Democrats, Socialists, Communists writ large are extremely dangerous once they achieve power. The larger the population they control or target, the larger the killing field.

Read more …

“Trump the builder has looked at our nation’s capital and its iconic landmarks with a critical eye..”

• Trump’s White House Front Entrance Improvements (O’Brien)

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) tends to enter the ludicrous stage for its sufferers most quickly when President Donald Trump wants to do something that’s inarguably good, mostly to the benefit of future administrations and future generations of visitors to Washington, D.C. Trump the builder has looked at our nation’s capital and its iconic landmarks with a critical eye ever since he took up residence in the White House in 2017. So, in his second term, he’s decided to do something about the problems he’s seen simply by fixing things up. Seriously, who can argue with that? The left, the Democrats, and the legacy media can, that’s who.


My colleague David Manney covered earlier iterations of this issue. And so, we’ve become all too familiar with the ludicrousness the left compulsively dishes up every time the Trump administration tackles another improvement project. The left is now so predictable and so fake about its outrage, it should come as no surprise that, with Trump setting his sights on the front door to the White House, the left would pretend to have a meltdown.

First, let’s take a look at the project, which was specifically prompted by a request from the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). The federal agency has wanted to bolster the front entrance to the White House with “security-focused upgrades” in a project that is expected to take months to complete, CNN has reported. The front entrance to the White House is at the North Portico of the building.

As much as you know CNN wanted to outright blame Trump for every facet of this story and spin it all into a negative, the cable news network said on its website, “The changes, which sources said have long been advocated by the US Secret Service, are aimed at fortifying the White House entrance at the North Portico, which has recently been obscured by scaffolding and a tarp as workers repair the exterior columns at President Donald Trump’s request… But unlike many of Trump’s projects around the White House — from hanging gold signage to paving the Rose Garden — the work on the front door is not cosmetic, and instead focused on enhancing its security, the White House official said.”

CNN further reported that in addition to the front entrance, security fencing is planned for Lafayette Park, “which surrounds the north side of the White House.” Keep in mind, the White House grounds are already fenced off and have several layers of intense security, some that you can see, most that you cannot. Reports are that the USSS, not the president, want to better secure the park so that when there are “presidential movements,” they don’t have to continually erect temporary security barriers. The goal, CNN reported, was to arrive at “a more permanent solution to the existing patchwork of temporary barricades, what officials describe as ‘comprehensive yet flexible fencing strategy for varying security risk.’ The permanent fencing is meant to make it easier to shut down the road when needed.”

The administration is going through all of the proper channels in deciding on the fencing, which means a proposal has been sent by the USSS, the White House, and the Department of Interior to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. That commission will look at the proposal with an eye towards the aesthetic and with historic preservation standards in mind. So, how is the left taking it? Well, Trump is turning Washington into a police state, of course.

The Lincoln Project decided to channel its TDS by using the USSS’s requested security upgrades as proof that Trump wants to be president for life.

On both the fencing story and the front door story, even though it’s clear that the USSS is behind the major changes, someone in the Democrats’ spin room has come up with the “never leaving” theme.

I happen to agree with the left here. Why is the USSS making such a big deal about security around the White House? It’s not like anything bad ever happens around there or could even happen. Just one more conservative conspiracy theory, I think.

Well, OK, there was the time leftists literally tried to breech the White House security perimeter and burn the White House down, but if Trump wasn’t president at the time, they wouldn’t have had to do it. In fact, he made them do it. And they were just peaceful protests, anyway.

Read more …

This is so bad, it makes you fear for America. New York hates Trump.

• Trump Pays E jean Carroll $5m In Damages Over Sexual Abuse And Defamation (BBC)

US President Donald Trump has paid writer E Jean Carroll more than $5m (£3.7m) in damages three years after he was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming her in a civil case, her lawyers confirmed. “Today, we are pleased to report that she has received the damages payment the jury awarded her as a result of that verdict,” Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, said in a short statement on Tuesday. Trump was pushing to delay the payment, in order to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision not to hear his appeal of the case. But last week, the judge overseeing the case ordered him to pay the damages.


A representative from Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the payment. A statement from Carroll’s legal team confirmed that she had been paid more than $5.62m – the $5m awarded in damages plus the interest accrued during the appeal. Carroll, a former magazine columnist who is now 82, accused Trump of attacking her in the mid-1990s in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan, and later defaming her on his Truth Social website in a 2022 post denying her allegations. In 2023, a New York jury unanimously awarded Carroll the damages over her claim. Trump denied the allegations.

Trump put the damages into a court-controlled account shortly after the verdict, and it was held there while the appeals process played out. Lawyers for Trump decried the judge’s ruling that he must pay, calling the case a “hoax” and “Witch Hunt” which they alleged had been funded by Democrats. Trump has repeatedly alleged that Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the civil trial, improperly admitted evidence that prejudiced the jury against him. A federal appeals court agreed with the jury’s verdict last year and said Kaplan did not make errors that would warrant a new trial.

The Supreme Court last month declined Trump’s request to consider the case, clearing the way for the money to be paid to Carroll.Carroll cheered the ruling at the time, writing on her Substack blog: “WE WON!” “THIS WIN IS FOR EVERY WOMAN IN THE WORLD!” Carroll wrote. Trump has also appealed against another jury’s decision in 2024 finding the president liable for defaming Carroll in a separate instance and awarding her nearly $84m. A panel of federal judges denied his appeal last year.

Read more …

Why do they keep her around?

• Kamala Harris’s Humiliating WNBA Speech Is Painful to Watch (Margolis)

Did you know that Former Vice President Kamala Harris is a fan of the WNBA? Okay, she probably couldn’t name more than a couple of teams if you quizzed her, even if she studied all night, but the takeaway here is that she went to a game on Sunday and was given the opportunity to speak to the Los Angeles Sparks (that’s one of the teams) after the game. And it was bad. Following the Sparks’ 102-87 win over the Chicago Sky, Kamala made her way to the team’s locker room to share a few words with the players. In her brief remarks, she praised the growth the WNBA has seen in recent years (though she didn’t thank Caitlin Clark) and congratulated the team, not just for the win, but for what she called the players’ broader impact.


“You are having an incredible impact. I travel our country; young girls, boys, people of every gender, background, race, watch the W and understand how inspiring it is,” Kamala said in her speech.Every gender? Good lord, how many different leagues will the NBA have to subsidize now? “So keep doing what you’re doing,” Kamala continued. “You guys are impacting people who you will never meet, people who may never know your name or mine, but they are aware of what you are doing. And it is giving them a sense of their value and their dignity and what they have a right to expect from this world. So, congratulations on this game, but congratulations, as much as anything else, for the path you guys are charting. It is extraordinary to watch.”

It’s a good thing she waited until after the final buzzer to say any of that. Imagine trying to run out for tip-off after hearing your “impact” summarized in a sentence that long. The Sparks might have lost by 30. To put it mildly, Kamala has never been known for her oratory skills or deep insight. She has a reputation for being a vacuous moron, and this speech (if you even want to call it that) did nothing to change it. She is about as exciting and uplifting as a can opener, and she still found a way to underperform even that. Emily Compagno tore into the speech Monday night on The Five, and she didn’t hold back.

“I feel like there should be a global policy against having her anywhere near a locker room pregame,” Compagno said on The Five. “Because I can think of nothing more deflating than listening to her and what she has to say. Sophie Cunningham did more for the WNBA in her two seconds of being a ring girl at the UFC fight, which was so explosive and awesome, than the vice president. I feel sorry for those women who are actually seeking any type of inspiration from her.” As Compagno went in, the Fox News chyron running at the bottom of the screen did some of the work for her. It read “Kamala Airballs Her WNBA Speech,” which is the kind of headline you can’t buy and definitely can’t spin.

“But we’re not surprised by this,” Compagno said. “And the unfortunate part to me is that she is still being enlisted as somehow a mouthpiece of the Democrat Party. She continues to flop in all of her speeches. I think fundraising continues to work, which surprises me. But I love this chyron so much, because she just whiffs every single time. I don’t understand why. The fact that her speeches — that lack substance, both in policy and actual ignition — continue to be spread throughout.” https://twitter.com/TheFive/status/2076796312071344260?s=20

“Whiffs” is generous. Kamala has had years, an entire presidential campaign, and a vice presidency to figure out how to talk to a room and inspire someone beyond her own ego.

Read more …

The Democratic Party is one big vacancy. Cue the likes of Ro.

• Ro Khanna Launches Bid as Class Warrior with Expanded Wealth Tax Pledge (Turley)

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) just moved to outbid his Democratic colleagues in the presidential auction. With the radical left sweeping away establishment figures in favor of socialists, various prospective presidential candidates are offering up key institutions in their effort to appease the mob. The Supreme Court has been the starting bid. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Josh Shapiro have yielded to the mob and embraced court packing. Khanna is not to be outdone. After his disastrous campaigning for Graham Platner, Khanna is returning to a sure winner: Class warfare.


Last week, Khanna confirmed that the “billionaire tax” is just the start and that they will go on to target the wealth of other citizens as an untapped resource of new revenue. For years, some of us have warned that the billionaire tax was a ruse. Sponsors like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Khanna were using billionaires as an easy political target, but they were unlikely to stop there. The challenge is to get the tax through the courts, which is why it is so essential to pack the court. Warren notably was an early advocate of both changes. I discuss the tax in my book “Rage and the Republic” as an example of the “eat-the-rich” politics used by demagogues from ancient Athens to the French Revolution.

Politicians seek to divide a population into “haves” and “have-nots” with the promise that citizens could have it all if only they are given back power. Warren tried to use the tax to restart her moribund 2020 presidential campaign. During one debate, she dramatically told the rich she was coming after “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” She thrilled the crowd by greedily rubbing her hands together after saying she would take some of the wealth of fellow candidate John Delaney, a self-made millionaire.

The problem is that a federal billionaire tax (which is distinct from California’s billionaire tax that will be on the upcoming state ballot) is, in my view, completely unconstitutional. The federal government secured the right to tax individuals in 1913, but the 16th Amendment only approved income taxes. As made clear by Warren, Democrats want to tax people for the things that they bought after paying their taxes from homes to art to boats. If they can pack the Court and greenlight a billionaire tax, there would be no limit to then moving the threshold wealth level downward. Once that Rubicon is crossed, Democrats would suddenly be able to tax trillions in the property and possessions of citizens.

That is precisely what Khanna finally admitted last week in a Substack post, arguing that “the tax should not stop at billionaires; it must reach centimillionaires. The tax has to reach all fortunes $50 million and up.” The wealth tax is the closest this country has come to an open redistribution-of-wealth effort, a core agenda item for the rising socialist movement. Other countries such as France tried wealth taxes with disastrous results. Not only did it fail to generate the expected revenue (the wealth left the country en masse), but it also had to be rescinded. In Norway, the government kept reducing the level of targeted assets to six-figure thresholds.

The national tax is meant to address the growing disaster in California, which has reportedly lost trillions as the wealthy flee the high-tax state. Khanna and other Democrats hope to give the wealth nowhere to flee by taking this “hunt-the-rich” effort national. In making this pitch, Khanna is trying to achieve the political stunt of the century. Khanna is reportedly worth roughly half a billion dollars thanks to his wife’s inheritance. He is not alone among the super wealthy Democrats declaring themselves the champions of the proletariat.

After all, there’s Illinois Gov. Jay Robert “JB” Pritzker, who also inherited his fortune. In a July interview with CNN, Pritzker virtually begged the mob that he is a different kind of billionaire, pointing at Trump billionaires as the rightful targets (not him with $4.3 billion). Others found themselves on the wrong side of the mob. Rep. Dan Goldman, who inherited a massive fortune of almost $300 million as a trust baby, unwisely promised to help subsidize his congressional reelection campaign from his family fortune. Goldman fell flat with the socialist and increasingly antisemitic base — and was crushed by over 30 points.

Khanna hopes to stay ahead of that mob by leading it to the homes of other wealthy citizens. As for California, the state is already showing how class warfare does not quite work if the upper classes simply leave with their wealth, businesses and jobs.

Read more …

“A Swedish MEP has filed criminal charges after a Danish colleague told her to “go home” in a social media post..”

• War of Words Turns Ugly After EU Migration Vote (RT)

A dispute over an immigration bill passed by the European Parliament has escalated into a criminal complaint, with a Swedish MEP accusing a Danish colleague of racist hate speech over a social media comment, The Guardian reported on Monday. A Swedish MEP of Iraqi descent, Abir Al-Sahlani, filed the complaint with Swedish police against Danish MEP Kristoffer Storm. He told her to “go home” in response to her post criticizing anti-immigration chants that followed the passage of a law aimed at speeding up the deportation of illegal migrants. She has also lodged a formal complaint with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola.


The dispute stems from last month’s approval of the Return Regulation, the toughest anti-immigration legislation passed by the EU in recent years. The measure allows member states to establish ‘return hubs’ outside the bloc to accelerate the deportation of illegal migrants. After the vote, chants of “send them back!” erupted in the chamber. In a speech condemning the outburst, Al-Sahlani called it “a new low level, even for the fascists on the far right.”

“I have never felt as unsafe in this parliament as after the voting about the Return Regulation, because the shouting of the far right was not against the political opponent… It was about ordinary people who did no other crime than looking for a better life in Europe,” she said. Storm rejected accusations that his response online was racist. Speaking to Politico, he said the phrase “go home” referred to leaving the parliamentary chamber, arguing that if Al-Sahlani found the democratic decision and lawmakers’ reactions so upsetting, “she would have been better off leaving the chamber.”

The clash comes amid growing tensions over migration across the EU. According to Eurostat, the bloc received more than 8.5 million immigrants from outside the bloc in 2023 and 2024, and immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in European politics. Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump claimed that European countries had deteriorated to the status of “Third World countries” because of their immigration policies.

Read more …

We can talk about it for years. Occupational therapy.

• US House To Vote On Bill Making Daylight Savings Time Permanent (JTN)

The U.S. House will vote this week on a bill making daylight savings time permanent, despite warnings from medical, education and safety organizations. The Sunshine Protection Act of 2025, which would end the nearly nationwide biannual clock changing and make daylight savings time permanent year-round, advanced out of committee Monday afternoon. States that use standard time year-round – currently only Arizona and Hawaii – before the law goes into effect wouldn’t have to change.


House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., testified in support of the bill, which Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., introduced. Pallone argued that changing the clocks every year is widely unpopular with Americans and that making daylight savings time permanent would boost the tourism industry. n“The real question is, why do we still change our clocks?,” Pallone said. “It’s getting harder and harder to justify.” Besides the U.S. tourism industry, retail and golfing industries have long lobbied Congress to permanently set the clocks an hour ahead.

“Our industry is uniquely tied to daylight, and the number of playable hours directly affects the number of rounds we can offer, the staff we employ, and the revenue we generate, especially in the late afternoon and early evening,” National Golf Course Owners Association CEO Jay Karen told lawmakers in 2025. bWe ask the Senate to consider the practical and economic consequences of losing evening daylight.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Retail Federation, National Association of Convenience Stores, the American Farm Bureau Federation and others have expressed support for making daylight savings time permanent.

But medical professionals, education advocates and safety professionals overwhelmingly support making standard time permanent instead. “By artificially shifting the clock time an hour forward, daylight saving time causes a misalignment between clock time and solar time, interfering with our circadian timing and resulting in a condition known as ‘social jet lag,’’ the American Academy of Sleep Medicine stated in its opposition to the bill. “This condition is associated with an increased risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and depression. If daylight saving time becomes permanent, then Americans will be living with social jet lag year-round.”

The American Medical Association, American College of Occupational Medicine, National Sleep Foundation, American Federation of Teachers, National School Boards Association, National Safety Council, and dozens of other organizations have endorsed permanent standard time. Congress tried to implement permanent daylight savings time in the 1970s. The two-year trial lasted less than a year, however — in a 1974 speech on the Senate floor, the former U.S. senator for Kansas Bob Dole said the change “is a classic example of the Congress legislating blindfolded”

“It has caused great inconvenience and in some cases hazard. It appears to me that the better part of wisdom might be outright repeal,” Dole said. “After spending the first 3 weeks of winter daylight time in Kansas, I became more convinced than ever that its hardships, inconvenience, and real hazards are too great to justify its continuation.” If the Sunshine Protection Act does pass the House on Tuesday, its future in the Senate is uncertain as it will need at least 60 votes to pass.

Read more …

Birthright Citizenship is 150 or so years old. It’s old. Nobody else has it. There are no slaves anymore.

• Bill to End Birthright Citizenship by Following Kavanaugh Roadmap (JTN)

Indiana Republican Sen. Jim Banks introduced legislation Monday that seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants by labeling them as children of “invaders” under federal law. The legislation was inspired by a roadmap suggested by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last month following a ruling that determined President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting automatic citizenship for certain individuals born in the United States violated the 14th Amendment.


Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion that stated that although the president’s order had conflicted with federal birthright citizenship law, Congress could amend the statute to create new exceptions, according to Fox News. Banks’ legislation would codify Trump’s 2025 executive order declaring illegal migration across the southern border an “invasion,” and change the Immigration and Nationality Act to exclude children of such “invaders.” The senator’s “Citizenship Act” legislation reads: “Any person who enters the United States without authorization or for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism is considered an invader.”

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump has not given up hope that his attempt to end birthright citizenship could pass and he has called for the high court to have a rehearing on the issue. Rehearings are not unprecedented but extremely rare. “The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision was an unprecedented assault on American sovereignty, and we must do whatever it takes to save our country,” Banks told Fox News. “I’m leading the Citizenship Act to reverse the effects of this consequential ruling and ensure the millions of illegal aliens that invaded our country can’t continue to exploit our immigration system.”

Read more …

It’s about control, plain and simple.

• The Digital Euro: Control and the End of Financial Privacy (Daniel Lacalle)

European Union lawmakers in Strasbourg have now agreed on their position regarding the digital euro, approving it in a vote on the 8th of July 2026. With this position, the European Parliament can start talks with national governments on the details of the design and functioning of the digital euro.


The ECB argues that the digital euro is required to preserve the benefits of cash in a digital age and protect Europe’s monetary sovereignty, while offering a fast, secure, widely accepted public means of payment. However, it is not a neutral or purely technological upgrade to Europe’s payments infrastructure. It is a political and technological project that may embed surveillance, monetary control, and fiscal dominance into the very structure of the currency.

EU lawmakers are now debating the regulation that will define the legal status, privacy framework, and holding limits of the digital euro, with the ECB openly lobbying for strong legislation to support what it calls a collective step forward for Europe. This means the most significant features, including programmability, limits, data access, and the role of commercial banks, will be decided in Brussels and Strasbourg rather than by markets or citizen demand.

The ECB sells the digital euro on four main promises: more efficient payments, greater monetary sovereignty, financial inclusion, and higher privacy than current private electronic payment systems. Not one of those claims holds up once you look at them, even briefly.

Read more …

The article says the interviewer is annoyed. I see none of that. Jagger makes sense.

• Mick Jagger Defends Elon Musk (MN)

Mick Jagger just delivered a masterclass in cutting through media spin, leaving a leftist New York Times podcaster visibly rattled as he clarified that his “mad mogul” lyric about Elon Musk was actually a compliment. The Rolling Stones legend refused to play along with the expected narrative during the interview, pushing back firmly when the host, David Marchese, presumed the line was a diss. Instead, Jagger highlighted Musk’s real-world achievements in space, crediting him with stepping up where government agencies have fallen short.

In the exchange, Jagger explained the context behind the lyric from the new Rolling Stones album Foreign Tongues. He pointed to the rescue of the stranded NASA astronauts last year, noting that Musk’s SpaceXprovided the transportation NASA couldn’t. ]Jagger told the interviewer: “It’s not nagging, but people hear one word and they don’t really listen to the line. So it’s like, ‘Mick Jagger has a go at Elon Musk.’ You’re not listening to the line, you’re only listening to ‘Musk.’ … even though I do call him mad.”

Marchese’s expression totally changed from smiling to frowning in an instant when Jagger refused to confirm the interviewer’s gleeful expectation that the singer would criticise Musk. He continued: “When I wrote that, I was thinking that because of him, they were able to get those astronauts back that were stuck because he provided the transportation because NASA couldn’t provide the transportation…” “Who would you trust to get you into space?” Jagger continued, adding “Would you trust Boeing or would you trust NASA or would you trust mad mogul Mr. Musk? It’s really a side-winding compliment because he was the one I remembered was able to do that when the others couldn’t.”

Jagger exposed how Marchese had completely misinterpreted the lyrics of the song, making him look foolish.The podcaster pressed on, noting Musk was the only person named on the album, implying significance. Jagger stood his ground, adding that “mogul doesn’t always go down well, either,” and the host again showed how one dimensional he is by suggesting “No one likes a mogul.” Jagger was clearly exhausted with the exchange as Marchese simply refused to understand what the singer was getting at.

In another recent NYT interview, Jagger contrasted his approach to performing live with Bruce Springsteen’s rabid anti-Trump activism, emphasizing that his job is to give fans a great time, not sermonize. Jagger’s nuanced expression underscores a refreshing independence in an industry often dominated by predictable elite consensus, and his clarity cuts against the grain of performative outrage. Moments like this expose the disconnect between coastal media bubbles and ground-level realities.

The Rolling Stones continue to prove their enduring relevance not by chasing trends, but by staying true to a no-nonsense ethos that prioritizes delivery over dogma. Jagger’s unapologetic take serves as a subtle rebuke to those who weaponize art for division rather than unity through great music and honest reflection. Jagger gets it – focus on what works, entertain the audience, and let results speak louder than spin. In a free society, that kind of straight talk is exactly what keeps culture vibrant against efforts to enforce conformity. https://twitter.com/Jules31415/status/2076829239265956264?s=20

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2076778037752869318?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 2 2026

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


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


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

 


 

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

 


 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

• A Roadmap To Fix Birthright Citizenship (Dmitri Bolt)

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


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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

Antagonizing Trump will not work out well.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

The “everything app” is not an app.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

“Everything app” device.

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

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


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

…

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

Read more …

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

• Ozempic Sat Unused for Decades (QTR)

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


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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Both options for Fauci will be devastating for his legacy.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 1 2026

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


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


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

 


 

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

 


 


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

Don’t let pregnant women into the country.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

It was close.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

• A New Deal for Presidents? (Turley)

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

From Monday.

• Trump Gives Remarks and Opinion on Three Supreme Court Decisions

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


Read more …

Divided.

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

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


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

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

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

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

E pluribus unum

Read more …

With USAID gone…

• Latin American Countries Moving to the Right (Anderson)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

Nope. It’s recent.

• Democrats Have Always Been Communists (Margolis)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

A lawsuit to avoid the inevitable.

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

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


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

Read more …

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

Not risking, deliberately creating.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

Corruption fits.

• Ukraine In Bed With Mexican Drug Lords (RT)

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


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

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

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

Read more …

The ongoing RT ban makes videos inaccessible.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Read more …

PCR insists Putin should have killed more Ukrainians.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 7 2026

Apr 072026
 
 April 7, 2026  Posted by at 9:38 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  81 Responses »


Odilon Redon Wild Flowers in a Vase c1910


• Not Bluffing (James Howard Kunstler)
• Europe Is On The Verge of a Massive Jet Fuel Shortfall (Kolbe)
• Orban Urges End To Sanctions Against Russian Energy (TASS)
• Iraq Tells Buyers To Collect Crude Which Can Now Cross Hormuz (ZH)
• The Collapse of Trump’s Mind Leaves No Alternative (Helmer)
• Iran Threatens “Annihilation” of OpenAI’s $30BN Data Center In Abu Dhabi (ZH)
• Trump Dragging Americans “Into Hell” – Iranian Parliament Speaker (RT)
• Is it Time for a New Amendment on the Meaning of Citizenship? (Turley)
• April 2026 | Eyesore (James Howard Kunstler)
• British King Makes Easter Message After Backlash Over Ramadan Greeting (RT)
• Trump Admin Appeals Order Halting White House Ballroom Construction (ET)
• Ukrainian Children ‘Harassing’ Draft Officers – Ombudsman (RT)
• Long-Term Social Media Use Linked to Depression, Self-Harm (ET)
• Former CENTCOM Commander Discusses US Rescue Operation in Iran (CTH)
• The European Mind Can’t Comprehend Why We’re Such Bad A****s (Stephen Green)

 


 

https://twitter.com/MichaelARothman/status/2040952257454518493?s=20

 


 


“And notice how nonchalant it sounds. Trump didn’t go for epic, carnage-heavy branding. He branded it the way you’d casually announce National Potato Chip Day.” American Debunk on X.

• Not Bluffing (James Howard Kunstler)

Note: you are living through the FAFO of all FAFOs just now. The USA is brooking no more aspersions from whomever is still left alive to speak for the jihad posse in Iran. These are the terms: open the strait, layoff the other Gulf states, surrender those thousand pounds of enriched uranium. You can still go forward in time as a developed nation, enjoy the modern Persian life. Or, you can go backward in time to the twelfth century without electric service, bridges, and other conveniences. Your choice.


Over the weekend, further demonstration of what we can do. Such as, against all odds and expectations, rescue an American airman stuck under fire in the middle of Iranian mountain nowhere and do it with no casualties. The Lefty-lefties were so disappointed! No body-bags to celebrate. No Trump failure to trumpet. They were praying out loud Sunday to the Easter Bunny for war crimes they can do a hate-dance over. They insist the USA must be defeated in Iran so that Chuck Schumer and Hakim Jeffries can win the mid-terms. . . so they can destroy Trump in Congress. (Uh, okay, and then what?)

Meanwhile, another couple of dozen Iranian military higher-ups got kinetically removed from operations Saturday. Good luck with your military command structure over there. Got carrier pigeons? But, as far as is known, President Masoud Pezeshkian is still above ground, along with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, with whom US negotiators have at least been messaging, if not talking directly.

Trouble is, their civilian government has no authority over the Revolutionary Guard (the IRGC), which controls all the missiles and drones, the proxy Quds forces outside Iran, and what’s left of the Basij secret police for terrorizing Iran’s people. Remember, it was the Revolutionary Guard who started this jihad long ago in 1979 when they seized the US embassy in Teheran and held 52 Americans hostages for more than a year.

The ultimatum to roll over Iran’s vital infrastructure on Tuesday is a forcing function to clarify who exactly can speak for the Iranian nation if they sincerely want the punishment to stop. It is unlikely to be anyone atop the IRGC, which is the rectified essence of the Islamic death cult. It lives for death! Death to America. . . death to ourselves for that ticket to paradise where the seventy-two virgins beckon. . . death to the global economy, if Allah requires it! Lovely, lovely death!

What part of that does Western Civ not understand? Jihad rolls across Europe without opposition. Nightclub massacres, trucks smashing through bodies in the Christmas markets, rape gangs, beheadings of teachers and Christian priests in broad daylight — none of that was enough to bestir the prime ministers and presidents of Euroland to consider expelling the uninvited hordes. New York City, the bastion of Lefty-left masochism, now lives under the sway of Momdani’s soft jihad, the Islamic call-to-prayer rings through the neighborhoods twenty-five years after 9-11. The Jews of the Upper West Side voted for it. Compassion for the oppressed, as always. . . at one’s own expense.

The US President will have none of that, of course. So, he put it in the starkest form possible, with a touch of manic glee to annoy his homeland enemies. Developments since then? An Israeli air strike overnight took out Majid Khademi, the IRGC Intel chief. Who’s next? Step right up. Foreign Minister Araghchi hastily proposed a forty-five-day ceasefire through Egyptian-Turkish-Pakistani mediators. I doubt that our side wants to give them forty-five days to re-shuffle their remaining assets around. Mr. Trump is not bluffing about those bridges and power plants. Russia and China are not riding to the rescue. And Europe is still off in its corner, pearl-clutching and sniveling while its economies sputter.

Epic Fury leads to epic change on the global landscape. The old arrangements are over, especially the sponsored export of jihadi terror. The Hormuz crisis is the actualization of the global resource scramble underway. The winners and losers are sorting themselves out now, and Mr. Trump seeks to make sure that America is on the winners’ side. So, you must ask: why does the American Left, as personified in the Democratic Party, so desperately want our country to lose?

Read more …

“On April 9, the last tanker carrying jet fuel from the Persian Gulf will reach Rotterdam; existing reserves are likely to sustain European flight operations for three to four weeks.”

• Europe Is On The Verge of a Massive Jet Fuel Shortfall (Kolbe)

Politics has established a new routine. Right at 12 noon, prices at German gas stations now rise day after day. The government’s pricing decree, a hastily assembled mechanism, acts like an accelerant in an already dramatically strained fuel supply situation. Anyone with rudimentary economic understanding already knew that this form of price regulation would amount to political posturing with fatal consequences. The market is reacting as expected. Gas station operators anticipate general price increases and indirectly coordinate their pricing behavior. If everyone is only allowed to raise prices once per day, that shot will be fired deliberately — better too high than too low.


After that, it becomes a waiting game, observing how competitors react. If the next move can only be a price reduction, the risk can be solved in simple game-theoretical terms: prices are simply kept high as long as competitors do not move. This creates a cartel-like situation that avoids the risk of rapid price cuts and the resulting loss of individual margins. Market dynamics thus turn into generalized tactical hesitation. At the same time, political leadership is marked by a striking lack of direction in the face of real scarcity and a rapidly worsening supply situation. Hormuz is exposing the limits of political emergency measures.

The measures taken so far by the German government to curb rising prices are classic political camouflage — a well-rehearsed play for the public. The fundamental question of how to deal with energy imports is not being seriously addressed. Europe must import 60 percent of its energy to meet demand. And the stubborn stance toward Russia, Europe’s most important supplier of energy and raw materials, will likely prove to be the most fatal mistake of European policy — quite an achievement, given that it is already riddled with misjudgments and ideologically driven, erratic decisions.

It is also significant that Brussels’ CO2regime has severely damaged Europe’s refining capacity. Europe no longer has the infrastructure required to rapidly activate refining capacity in an emergency and close the widening gap in oil and gas supply, regardless of where new raw materials might be sourced. EU policy is knowingly and deliberately escalating the current situation. This finding applies in particular to jet fuel imports. Europe’s aviation sector imports around 40 percent of its jet fuel from the Persian Gulf, making the current situation effectively unsolvable.

Since the beginning of the war, the price of jet fuel has roughly doubled, from $800 to $1,800 per ton. The fact that the United States is taking its time to bring the Strait of Hormuz under military control is putting enormous pressure on European airlines. Scandinavian carrier SAS has already canceled 1,000 flights in April. Lufthansa is also considering grounding parts of its fleet. Airlines that have hedged their fuel purchases may be able to cushion price increases somewhat — Lufthansa among them — but this does nothing to address the physical shortage of available jet fuel. Europe is on the verge of a massive jet fuel shortfall.

On April 9, the last tanker carrying jet fuel from the Persian Gulf will reach Rotterdam; existing reserves are likely to sustain European flight operations for three to four weeks. What happens afterward remains completely uncertain.Given the destruction of refining capacity and related infrastructure in the name of the Green Deal, European policymakers find their hands effectively tied. The Hormuz crisis is likely to erupt with full force. If there is no rapid resolution to the Iran conflict, a loss of 40% of available jet fuel simply cannot be compensated.

Read more …

The Hungarian prime minister warned that “Europe is nearing an extremely serious energy crisis, and the coming days will be critical”

• Orban Urges End To Sanctions Against Russian Energy (TASS)

Hungary is firmly advocating for the lifting of sanctions on Russian oil and gas supplies to Europe, emphasizing the urgency of this move amid the looming threat of a global energy crisis linked to the ongoing situation in Iran. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban conveyed this stance during a visit to inspect a section of the gas pipeline and the measuring station in Kiskundorozsma, near the border with Serbia.”The Hungarian position is clear: we must end sanctions against Russian energy,” Orban declared, with his remarks broadcast on Hungarian television. He warned that “Europe is nearing an extremely serious energy crisis, and the coming days will be critical.” In his view, “competition for energy resources could resemble the scramble we saw with vaccines during the coronavirus pandemic.”


Orban’s inspection followed an attempted terrorist attack on the Serbian segment of the TurkStream pipeline, which supplies gas to Hungary and Slovakia. In response, on April 5, he ordered the entire 250-kilometer stretch of the pipeline within Hungarian territory to be placed under military protection. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto accompanied him to the Serbia border. “Currently, Hungary’s energy supplies are secure, but the pipeline must be protected,” Orban emphasized, adding that “the situation is extremely serious.” He warned that “if this pipeline were to be cut, Hungary’s economy would come to a standstill.”

When questioned by journalists, Orban said it was too early to identify those responsible for the sabotage attempt, as investigations by Serbian authorities were ongoing. He also recalled that Ukraine had previously blown up the Nord Stream pipeline, halted Russian gas transit to Hungary, and this year imposed an oil blockade on Hungary by refusing to resume supplies via the Druzhba pipeline. Szijjarto further stated that “the Ukrainians aim to completely exclude Russian gas and oil from Europe.” He pointed out that “political actions, as well as terrorist attacks, have been undertaken to achieve this goal,” citing the explosion of the Nord Stream pipeline as the first such act.

Read more …

“While US Boosts Ship Reinsurance Guarantees To $40BN ..”

Note: Iraq, not Iran

This is where the US (Trump) takes over Britain’s long-standing (re-)insurance business.

• Iraq Tells Buyers To Collect Crude Which Can Now Cross Hormuz (ZH)

Over the long weekend, we reported that with traffic across the Hormuz strait continuing to rise, and reaching the highest since the war began, one particularly favorable development was Iran’s permission for Iraqi ships to use the Strait. We also noted that this declaration had the potential to unleash as much as 3 million barrels a day of Iraqi oil cargoes.That said, there was the caveat that it was not immediately clear if the exemption will apply to all Iraqi oil or just the nation’s tankers, or indeed how it will be enforced. Furthermore, an Iraqi official cautioned that the usefulness of the exemption will depend on whether shipping companies are willing to risk entering the strait to collect cargoes.


Today Iraq underscored this last point when the Gulf state told traders and refiners they can collect crude cargoes as vessels carrying the country’s oil are now able to transit the Strait of Hormuz thanks to an Iranian exemption, testing buyers’ confidence in the security guarantee. In a notice sent on Sunday, the country’s State Organization for Marketing of Oil, known as SOMO, said Iraqi shipments were now “exempt from any potential restrictions,” citing media reports. It asked buyers for lifting schedules, including vessel details and volumes requested, adding all loading terminals including Basrah were “fully operational.” Customers were given 24 hours to respond.

As previously reported, Iran said over the weekend that its neighbor was now free from shipping restrictions around the vital waterway. The country’s military spokesman did not provide details on whether the arrangement applied to vessels or cargoes. The Turkish-owned tanker Ocean Thunder, carrying a million barrels of Iraqi crude to Malaysia crossed the narrow waterway after the announcement. As Bloomberg notes, Iraq often sells oil on a free-on-board (FOB) basis, meaning refiners sort out their own shipping, but it has struggled to export crude since the effective closure of Hormuz a month ago. Asian buyers reached by Bloomberg said they were seeking clarity on conditions, including whether Iraq would offer the use of its own tankers, thereby providing extra security, although judging by Iraq’s comments it is inviting buyers to send their own tankers.

Separately, the Iraqi Basra Oil company announced that Iraq can restore oil exports to 3.4 million barrels per day within a week if Hormuz shipping resumed. Meanwhile, in hopes of kickstarting frozen traffic – and potentially taking over the lucrative shipping insurance market from London – on Friday the US announced it would double to $40 billion its commitment to provide reinsurance guarantees to ships willing to travel through the Strait of Hormuz with the addition of new insurance partners, including AIG and Berkshire Hathaway. The move was the latest US effort to ease worries over the vital waterway and to encourage traffic to resume.

Recall a month ago the US International Development Finance Corp. announced a $20 billion reinsurance program. On Friday, the agency said Travelers, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Berkshire Hathaway, AIG, Starr and CNA will join Chubb to provide an additional $20 billion in reinsurance for the agency’s maritime facility. “Along with Chubb, these leading American insurers bring deep underwriting experience in marine and marine war coverage, strengthening our efforts to help restore confidence in maritime trade,” DFC Chief Executive Officer Ben Black said in a statement.

The DFC also said in the statement that the agency and insurance partners will determine which vessels are eligible for the reinsurance facility. To qualify, the DFC is requiring applicants to provide, among other details, the origin and destination country of the vessel; major beneficial owners of the ship and domicile; owner of the cargo and domicile of the owner; and information about the lenders financing the vessels. Trump on Friday reiterated his frustration over the strait’s closure and the failure of allies to help the US reopen the waterway.

“With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE,” Trump said in a social media post. It wasn’t immediately clear what actions the president was considering. Shippers remain doubtful, though, of a wholesale return to the Strait of Hormuz even after Trump’s promise to protect ships and his primetime speech on Wednesday in which he repeated that the war will soon end. The key concern about traversing the sea route is that it puts the lives of crews at risk as Iran continues to threaten vessels with drone attacks, missiles and water mines.

Read more …

“Trump revealed that he thinks there can be no alternative for a state or a people or a god but submission or destruction. Theirs, or his.”

• The Collapse of Trump’s Mind Leaves No Alternative (Helmer)

In the four days between April 1 and April 5, President Donald Trump made a record of the collapse of his mind into genocidal violence which none of his officials can dissuade, limit, control, if they try, or even conceal. Not the military experts of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; not the pollsters of the White House Chief of Staff; not the lawyers of the White House Counsel; not even the spell-checkers of the Director of Communications. Between declaring “we’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong” and “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell. JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah”, Trump revealed that he thinks there can be no alternative for a state or a people or a god but submission or destruction. Theirs, or his.


In Moscow, there has been silence except for Trump’s advocate inside the Kremlin, Kirill Dmitriev. He has tweeted in support of Trump’s attacks on one of his domestic bugbears, the New York Times, and one of his foreign ones, Europe.This record has been compiled by analysing Trump’s remarks from his rehearsal of the “Stone Ages” line just before his national television speech at 9 pm on April 1 through his early morning tweet on April 5; putting them in the sequence out of Trump’s mouth and time log of their publication; and then locating them in the chain of official meetings and other activities, including inactivities and secrets, identified in the published “Presidential Public Schedule”.

The words speak for themselves. For political analysis of the April 1 speech, read this. The legal standard for genocide includes both intention as Trump has expressed it in this record and acts as he has both threatened and decided, then celebrated in this record. This is how the United Nations sets the standard: “To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.”

Trump’s words and the calendar context in which he said them do more than this. The April 1 speech was composed by a committee of advisors who met with him at 3 pm to compose the final draft. In the Calendar, this is noted as a “policy meeting”. According to the account of White House decision-making reported by Time Magazine on April 2, and the motives of the anonymous sources and leakers behind it, there is a deep division in Trump’s policy-making group on the risks he is running in continuing the war against Iran, and escalating instead of exiting from it.

Read more …

New war, new tools.

• Iran Threatens “Annihilation” of OpenAI’s $30BN Data Center In Abu Dhabi (ZH)

In a move that may well have been sponsored by Dario Amodei or Elon Musk, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a clear public warning to the US that any damage inflicted on Iran’s power infrastructure will be met with decisive retaliation. Specifically, IRGC spokesperson Brigadier General Ebrahim Zolfaghari threatened the “complete and utter annihilation” of U.S. and Israeli facilities, with Stargate’s $30 billion “hidden” AI datacenter in Abu Dhabi singled out as a juicy target for Iranian destruction later in the video. The threats come on the heels of Iran reportedly delivering enough damage via rocket strikes to some Amazon AWS data centers that they have shut down.


In the video, Zolfaghari warned that “should the USA proceed with its threats concerning Iran’s power plant facilities the following retaliatory measures shall be promptly enacted: All power plants, energy infrastructure, and information and communications technology of the Zionist regime, and all similar companies within the region that have American shareholders shall face complete and utter annihilation.”

As Tom’s Hardware notes, after Zolfaghari’s remarks end, the video switches to a shot of the Earth from space, which zooms into Abu Dhabi on Google Maps. A zone not far from the coast is then centered on, showing an apparently ‘empty’ area of desert. However, a message is overlaid on this bleak view, stating “Nothing stays hidden to our sight, though hidden by Google.” The video then switches to a ‘night vision’ view of the same area of the map with the full extent of the Stargate AI datacenter in Abu Dhabi clear to see.


The threat comes after the IRGC claimed they targeted Oracle’s data centers in Dubai.

There has been no confirmation whether the facility was hit or what damage it may have sustained.

Read more …

Between Trump and Iran, it looks like a bragging competition.

• Trump Dragging Americans “Into Hell” – Iranian Parliament Speaker (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s war with Iran is making life worse for ordinary Americans, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said in response to ultimatums over the Strait of Hormuz.In an expletive-laden post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump warned that Iran would be “living in hell” unless the vital waterway is reopened to shipping by Tuesday, 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time (Wednesday, 12:00 a.m. GMT). He also repeated his threat to bomb Iran’s power plants and bridges.Responding on X hours later, Qalibaf urged Trump to end what he described as a “dangerous game.”


“Your reckless moves are dragging the United States into a living HELL for every single family, and our whole region is going to burn because you insist on following Netanyahu’s commands,” Qalibaf wrote, referring to the Israeli prime minister. “Make no mistake: You won’t gain anything through war crimes,” the Iranian official added.Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to “enemy ships” shortly after the US and Israel initiated their air campaign on February 28. Tehran later said navigation rules would change and that the strait would remain inaccessible to the US and Israel for an extended period.

Traffic through the strait normally accounts for 20–25% of global oil shipments and around 20% of liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade. Disruptions linked to the ongoing conflict are driving up energy prices, including in the US, where the average price of gasoline has risen to $4 per gallon for the first time since 2022. Russia’s envoy to international organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, said Washington fails to understand that Tehran would only accept agreements based on “reasonable compromises,” not ultimatums.

Read more …

“We’re in a new world now … where eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”

• Is it Time for a New Amendment on the Meaning of Citizenship? (Turley)

“Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.” Those words from Chief Justice John Roberts during this week’s oral arguments signaled that the conservative justices are unlikely to reject birthright citizenship. Of course, nothing is certain until this summer when the Court issues its opinion in Trump v. Barbara. However, we need to consider the need for a 28th Amendment to reaffirm the meaning of citizenship.


As some of us stressed before the oral argument, the odds were against the administration prevailing in the case, given more than a century of countervailing precedent. There are good-faith arguments against reading the 14th Amendment as supporting citizenship for any child born in this country. It is doubtful that the drafters of the 14th Amendment could have envisioned millions of births to illegal aliens. They surely did not imagine foreigners coming to this country for the purpose of giving birth — or even, without ever entering the U.S., contracting multiple U.S. residents to carry babies to term for them as surrogates.

The historical record is highly conflicted. Some drafters expressly denied that they intended for birthright citizenship to be covered by the 14th Amendment. The rampant abuse in this country and the widespread rejection of birthright citizenship by other countries (including some that once followed it) did not seem to impress the conservative justices. Roberts’s statement was in response to Solicitor General John Sauer’s argument that “We’re in a new world now … where eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”

Although President Trump has lashed out with personal attacks on the conservative justices as “disloyal” and “stupid,” they are doing what they are bound by oath to do: apply the law without political favor or interest. I expect most of the justices agree with the vast majority of countries — and the president — that birthright citizenship is a foolish and harmful policy. But they are not legislators; they are jurists tasked with constitutional interpretation. Trump appointed three principled justices to the court. To their (and to his) credit, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett have proven that they are driven by the underlying law, not the ultimate outcome of cases.

For conservatives, constitutional interpretations offer less leeway than their liberal colleagues or believers in the “living constitution.” If you believe in continually updating the Constitution from the bench to meet contemporary demands, constitutional language is barely a speed bump on your path to the preferred outcome in any given case. In my Supreme Court class, I call this a “default case” in which justices tend to run home. When a record or the law is uncertain, conservative justices tend to avoid expansive, new interpretations. That was precisely what Trump said he wanted in nominees.

These justices are not being “disloyal” to him, but rather loyal to what they view as the meaning of the Constitution. I have at times disagreed with their view of the law, but I have never questioned their integrity. None of this means we should accept the expected outcome in this case as the final word on birthright citizenship. Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.” The final word actually rests with the public. We can amend the Constitution to join most of the world in barring birthright citizenship. There is no more important question in a republic than the definition of citizenship.

We are becoming a virtual mockery as we watch millions game the birthright citizenship system. China alone has hundreds of tourism firms that have made fortunes in arranging for Chinese citizens to come to U.S. territory to give birth and then return home. No republic can last without controlling its borders and the qualifications for citizenship. We have allowed U.S. citizenship to become a mere commodity for the most affluent or unscrupulous among us.

The combination of open borders and open-ended citizenship can be an existential threat to this Republic. It is not that we cannot absorb millions of births, but rather that no republic can retain its core identity without more clearly defining and controlling the meaning of being a citizen. The U.S. is and will remain a nation of immigrants. We welcome lawful immigrants who come to this country to embrace our values and our common identity. But being a nation of immigrants does not mean that we are a nation of chumps.

Read more …

“It’s basically Trump in architectural form: the deal-doing warrior and man with the Midas touch, presided over by his gleaming, gloating, engorged effigy.” —The Guardian

• April 2026 | Eyesore (James Howard Kunstler)

Behold: the proposed Donald J. Trump Presidential Library coming in for a landing on Biscayne Boulevard, Miami a few years hence. It is already catching a lot of TDS flak, and deservedly so, for its gilded grandiosity — including a gigantic golden statue of “47” himself inside somewhere, and the gold “Trump” brand logo plastered on the 47th floor. Mr. Trump has always been a comedian, and this monument is, at least partly, a bit of trollery against his millions of hate-inflamed detractors, a 47-story middle finger (with a smile). All of that is too self-evident to belabor.


Don’t expect this library to house many books, either. Rather, the building is a combo temple / museum, filled with artifacts and objects of worship, like the jumbo jet (of various Air Force Ones) to be installed in the ground floor entrance.

The more curious aspect of this project is its manifestation as a skyscraper. Such megastructures are just now going obsolete all over the world, and the world is stuck with them. Working from home, or the corner cafe, or just about anywhere, killed the need for organizing office work in this manner, and artificial intelligence is apt to sweep away countless middle-management, information handling jobs in any case. Another skyscraper is just not what the world needs these days.

So, you’d also have to ask: aside from exhibit halls, study rooms, and auditoriums, what the heck else is expected to occupy the many other floors of the building? Document storage makes more sense in low-slung structures (filing cabinets are heavy) or underground, with elaborate climate-control. Is the plan to offer some upper floor market rental space to companies who might want to locate at a “prestige address?” But, we’ve already established that the traditional office milieu is on its way out.

The answer probably is that building skyscrapers is just what DJT did in life, besides being president of the USA twice. It’s what he knows how to do, and this scheme reflects on the triumphs of his prior career in real estate development. Really, it’s just another Trump Tower, perhaps, ultimately, another Trump hotel for folks who want to bask in the glow of the Golden Golem of Greatness and his legendary doings. The final joke is that it’s being financed with the awards from the various lawsuits Mr. T has won against the old legacy media giants who defamed him over years. For all that, we say GO, MAGA. . . !

Read more …

What are the odds the royal family will survive? The only reason they’re still there is Elizabeth. But all her kids are retards. And some day Charles will face his own crisis. Look at how he treated Lady Di. A king first should behave as one.

• British King Makes Easter Message After Backlash Over Ramadan Greeting (RT)

British King Charles III has issued an Easter message to Christians, after Buckingham Palace came under fire earlier this week for stating that he would not make one. He recently delivered greetings to Muslims on Ramadan. The British monarch is traditionally the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. On Thursday, GB News quoted a Buckingham Palace representative as saying that King Charles would not issue an Easter message. The announcement drew criticism from social media users, many of whom described the king’s Easter silence as “disappointing.” “We are hurting as a nation, we needed a message of Easter hope,” one user wrote.


Some critics took issue with the fact that, in February, the Royal family posted a message on its social media accounts marking the beginning of Ramadan, the holiest month in the Islamic calendar. “Wishing all Muslims in the UK, the Commonwealth and around the world a blessed and peaceful Ramadan,” the greeting read. In March, as Muslims around the world celebrated Eid al-Fitr, marking the end of the month-long fast, Buckingham Palace also published a post reading, “Eid Mubarak to Muslims celebrating in the UK and around the world.”Several British Christian clerics criticized the Royal family’s initial refusal to do the same for the country’s largest religious community.

Gavin Ashenden, a former chaplain to the late Queen Elizabeth II, issued a statement in which he suggested that the King’s silence gave his subjects the impression that the monarch “is more sympathetic to Islam.” He added that this was particularly disheartening at a time when “Christianity throughout the West – but particularly in this country, and Anglicanism above all – is beginning to sink into decay.” Bishop Ceirion H. Dewar similarly wrote on X that the Royal family’s silence on Easter was a “grave disappointment.” On Sunday, the Royal family ultimately released a short message to wish “a joyous Easter Sunday to Christians celebrating in the UK, the Commonwealth and around the world.”

Read more …

“Beyond building an expanded facility to host guests, the Trump administration said the White House construction project includes new protective measures.”

• Trump Admin Appeals Order Halting White House Ballroom Construction (ET)

The Trump administration on April 3 appealed a judge’s order to halt construction on a new White House ballroom, elevating security concerns associated with the project. On March 31, Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order declaring that the president lacked the authority to order the $400 million addition on the presidential residence. Leon’s ruling came as a win for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a congressionally chartered nonprofit for the preservation of U.S. monuments and historic sites, which has challenged the White House renovation.


The National Park Service filed an emergency motion before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 3, arguing that halting the construction in progress exposes a construction site with highly sensitive security features. Beyond simply building an expanded facility to host guests, the National Park Service said the ongoing construction includes the installation of new protective features to withstand attacks from high-powered rifles, drones, missiles, and other unspecified “emerging national-security technologies and threats.”

Supporting the National Park Service in the case, Secret Service Deputy Director Matthew Quinn described the open construction site as a “managed safety hazard” that creates added challenges for the president’s security detail. The National Park Service argued that the project should be finished quickly, writing, “Time is of the essence!” In his ruling enjoining the construction project, Leon said that as president, Trump is the steward of the White House, but not an owner who can do with the residence as he chooses. The district judge wrote that the true authority over federal property rests with Congress, not the president.

However, in its appeal, the National Park Service argued that presidential authority covers security-related renovations at the residence. “The district court took the erroneous, sweeping view that Congress did not authorize the ballroom construction at the White House—yet correctly allows construction ‘necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds, including the ballroom construction site, and provide for the personal safety of the President and his staff,’” the National Park Service wrote. Leon acknowledged security issues in his March 31 order to halt the construction.

In a separate order, the district judge said construction could not proceed on the development of the ballroom, but left room for the Trump administration to proceed with construction actions “strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds, including the ballroom construction site, and provide for the personal safety of the President and his staff.” Leon’s order calls for a halt to the ballroom construction by April 14.

Read more …

Ha ha.

• Ukrainian Children ‘Harassing’ Draft Officers – Ombudsman (RT)

Ukrainian schoolchildren are increasingly “harassing” draft officers on the streets after watching viral TikTok videos of the officers attempting to press reluctant recruits into service, Ukraine’s military ombudsman, Olga Reshetilova, has said. Speaking on NV Radio on Saturday, Reshetilova accused Russia of spreading videos of violent acts amid the conscription campaign – which has become known in Ukraine as ‘busification’ – but conceded that the narrative has found “fertile ground.” “Schoolchildren, having watched Russian TikTok videos about the recruitment centers, start harassing people in military uniform on the streets,” she said, calling it “a very dangerous signal, because children’s psyche is not ready.”


Reshetilova also noted that parents are compounding the problem by openly discussing forced conscription in front of their children. She added that when “teenage aggression is directed at servicemen, this requires our counteraction,” such as pursuing a “nationwide information policy… in cultivating respect for a person in uniform.”nReshetilova’s comments come amid Ukraine’s contentious draft campaign, which has spawned thousands of videos showing officers clashing with reluctant recruits. Some altercations result in serious consequences, including injuries and even death in some documented cases. Many of the clips also feature ordinary civilians trying to protect people from being pressed into military service.

A Council of Europe report in July 2025 found systemic human rights violations in Ukraine’s recruitment process, citing beatings and the conscription of people with disabilities. While Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has acknowledged issues with the draft and ordered defense officials to implement the necessary reforms, the head of his office, Kirill Budanov, dampened hopes for swift reform, stressing that forced conscription is vital to staving off a collapse of the front lines and replenishing battlefield losses.

Read more …

How many kids do it long enough to qualify for “long-term use”?

• Long-Term Social Media Use Linked to Depression, Self-Harm (ET)

An Australian-led study has found children and teenagers who spend more time on social media are more likely to experience depression, self-harm, substance use, and lower achievement later in life. Published in JAMA Pediatrics, the systematic review examined data from 153 studies consisting of over 350,000 children and adolescents aged between 2 and 19 years, for up to two decades. “The strongest pattern we saw was between social media use and later problematic media use, suggesting early patterns of engagement may become more entrenched and difficult to manage over time,” said Sam Teague, a senior research fellow at James Cook University.


The study focused on longitudinal research, which follows participants over time and offers stronger insight into how behaviours and outcomes develop. Teague said previous research in the field often relied on snapshots collected at a single point in time, making it harder to determine whether social media use preceded negative outcomes. However, she stressed the findings do not prove social media causes harm. Instead, the results show consistent links between higher use and a range of developmental outcomes, including cognitive, social-emotional, physical health, and motor development.

Amy Orben, a professor at the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at the University of Cambridge, said the relationship may be more complex.“It may be that children who are already struggling spend more time on social media, rather than social media being the cause of their difficulties,” Orben said. “Similarly, some personality traits or life circumstances might make certain children both more likely to use social media heavily and more likely to experience poorer developmental outcomes.” Teague said one possible explanation is that time spent online may displace activities linked to better mental health.

“Time spent on digital media [could] displace time that would otherwise be spent on things that are linked to improved mental health, like exercise and connecting with family and peers in real life,” Teague told The Epoch Times in an email. She also contrasted the interactive nature of social media with traditional media.“Unique to digital media over traditional media, is its interactive nature, whereby children and teens are encouraged to keep engaging with content through addictive features like auto-play and auto-scroll,” she said. Adolescents in particular were identified as more vulnerable to the effects of social media.

“Early adolescence is when identity formation and peer relationships become key developmental systems for young people,” she said. She added that social media can magnify these pressures through constant external feedback and large social comparison. “Action is needed at the policy and platform level most to make our online environments, that are designed largely for adults, appropriate for children,” she said. “Addictive design features particularly need attention, like auto-play and auto-scroll, as well as exposure to harmful content.”

Read more …

“..it takes a year to build an aircraft. It takes 200 years to build a military tradition where you don’t leave anybody behind.”

• Former CENTCOM Commander Discusses US Rescue Operation in Iran (CTH)

Former Commander of CENTCOM, General Frank McKenzie, appears on CBS to give his analysis of ongoing Operation Epic Fury, along with the successful rescue of the F-15 crew.



[Transcript] – ED O’KEEFE: We’re joined now by the former head of U.S. Central Command, retired General Frank McKenzie. General, Happy Easter.

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: And the same to you, Ed.

ED O’KEEFE: So it took just under 48 hours to find the missing weapons systems officer. After the jet they were in went down in a remote and mountainous area of southwestern Iran, the weapons officer was hiding in a mountainous crevice. We’re told by a senior administration official, what’s your assessment of how the search and rescue operation went?

GEN. MCKENZIE: So I think I’d draw two lessons from it, Ed. First of all, the excellence of the joint force, our ability to rapidly pivot, to look for a downed air crewman. We train for this endlessly. It’s a part of every time we send air crew over enemy territory, we have detailed, elaborate plans to go get them. It’s a very basic part of who we are as American fighting men and women. So that plan swung into action. I think it was executed pretty effectively. As always, you’ve got somebody on the ground, may be injured. They got to get to a position where they can hide until you can get to them. All that seemed to work out very well. And you know, we did, in fact, lose a couple of aircraft in that in that mission.

But I would just tell you, it takes a year to build an aircraft. It takes 200 years to build a military tradition where you don’t leave anybody behind. You take the aircraft trade any day in a situation like this. The other lesson, I think, is a hard lesson for Iran. First of all, they were not able to find the missing air crewman. Second, you know, they put out a broad appeal to their people to turn him in reward, asking for all kinds of leads, that does not appear to have been successful. And that would- I think that’s maybe a sign of disaffection, don’t know, but you can’t, you can’t be happy with that if you’re a senior leader in Tehran this morning.

D O’KEEFE: Yeah, you know Iran’s Revolutionary Guards now claiming responsibility for attacks on petrochemical plants in the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain. They warn its attacks against U.S. economic interests will intensify if attacks on civilian targets in Iran are repeated, does Iran and its proxies retain the capacity to inflict serious damage at this point?

GEN. MCKENZIE: They have the ability to inflict damage. They do not have the ability to gain mass effects. And by mass effects, I mean firing many, many dozens of rockets, missiles or drones. I think that capability has been eroded steadily since this campaign began. And frankly, at about plus 30 days into this campaign, I think if you’re at Central Command, you’ve got to be reasonably satisfied with where you are right now. In fact, Ed, when I was the CENTCOM Commander, if you had given me this situation at plus 30 days, I would have rejected it as being too optimistic by far. So we’ve had good effect. Our effects are going to continue. It’s going to be increasingly harder for them to launch missiles and rockets. We may not get to zero for a while, and I think there’s still some time ahead, but everyone realizes that. But I think we’re on track here. This campaign is moving very effectively, and I believe the pace will pick up every day.

Read more …

WSO=Weapons Systems Officer.

• The European Mind Can’t Comprehend Why We’re Such Bad A****s (Stephen Green)

After an F-15E Weapons Systems Officer ejected injured over Iranian territory, the United States military and intelligence community moved Heaven and Earth to find him, rescue him, and return him safely home. While we might never know the exact figures, somewhere between 100-200 personnel were involved in the rescue, including perhaps two small Night Stalker helicopters, and two MC-130J Commando II Special Forces cargo planes that had to be destroyed on the ground. Four specialized aircraft for one WSO? What a bargain! But it isn’t a bargain our NATO partners in Western Europe can afford.


Let me take you on a quick detour through exactly how American forces were able to track and finally pinpoint the location of the injured WSO. It’s a nifty little device called the Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL), and it’s worn by pilots and combat aircrews at risk of getting shot down over enemy territory. CSEL looks a little like an old-school satellite phone, and that’s because they share some DNA. Automatically activated during ejection, a CSEL communicates in short, encrypted bursts the ejectee’s location and movement. Short bursts prevent the enemy from triangulating a position (assuming they knew what to listen for), frequency hopping prevents repeated attempts at listening, and encryption means the bad guys can’t read the location data if even they did manage to intercept a transmission.

When a rescue team gets close, CSEL changes modes, “guiding helicopters straight to them in terrain that would otherwise swallow a man alive,” as Gene Robinson put it on X.Even with near-perfect data, rescue crews don’t necessarily have it easy. Tehran’s $60,000 bounty on our WSO’s life drew all kinds of armed vermin out of the woodwork, and our Special Forces are believed to have killed an unknown numbers of them during the extraction, estimated anywhere from dozens up to 100.

So let’s put this all together. U.S. forces established a hasty airhead in enemy territory, landed two Special Forces cargo planes there, held it against heavy enemy fire — and when things went south, destroyed the planes before calling in two more just like them to complete the rescue. We got our man out and lost zero men doing it. So, yeah, when President Donald Trump says this was one of the most “daring” rescues in history, he’s right. All made possible by a CSEL whose only purpose is to “phone home” via satellite by the most secure means possible — and there’s no other country on Earth that can make that kind of extraction so deep in enemy territory.

If one of our NATO allies, God forbid, had a pilot shot down over Iran — I know, I know; they’d have to send some warplane first — it would be American men and women putting their lives on the line to bring them out. This post is indicative of the mindset, and Western Europe’s comparative inability to conduct such rescues But as I replied on X, we don’t call it our “greatest military success of all time.” We call it “business as usual.” “If you want to know why the U.S. & IAF have the best and most committed pilots/aviators in the world, it’s because they know we will do everything in our power to bring them home.”

Or as former CENTCOM commander Ret. Gen. Frank McKenzie put it Sunday on Face the Nation, “It takes a year to build an aircraft, and it takes 200 years to build a military tradition where you don’t leave anybody behind.” As another wit said, France can’t afford to lose two of its 14 cargo planes, but we have hundreds. That’s the inevitable result of free-rider military budgets that countries like France and Britain are willing to make. Our air crews know that when they go out, they have the entire force and will of the United States military backing them up. Is it any wonder they’re so damn good?

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Old_But_Gold50s/status/2041025609858531577?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle January 23 2025

Jan 232025
 
 January 23, 2025  Posted by at 10:50 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  65 Responses »


Wassily Kandinsky Succession 1935

 

• Trump Ready To Meet With Putin ‘Anytime’ (RT)
• Trump Admits Love For Russian People And Offers Putin ‘A Deal’ (RT)
• This Transition Is Already a Huge Historical Marker (Jeffrey Tucker)
• Trump’s Sweeping Orders Will ‘Transform’ The World – Orban (RT)
• EU and UK ‘Prepared’ For Trump – Politico (RT)
• The Second Era of Trump Begins (Wegmann)
• Trump Begins Deep State Purge At DOJ (ZH)
• Trump Signs Executive Order to Fire Top Career Federal Managers Faster (PCR)
• A Ukrainian Victory Was Never Biden’s Goal: Time Magazine (Antiwar)
• Kiev Closest To Joining EU – Serbian President (RT)
• Hungary Blocks Renewal of Sanctions Against Russia – Bloomberg (RT)
• Cost Of Potatoes, Cost Of Blood – When Inflation Is Lethal (Helmer)
• The Age of Interplanetary Exceptionalism (Pepe Escobar)
• Oracle Boss Pledges Individual AI MRNA Cancer Vaccines (RT)
• Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Real (Ryan McMaken)
• The Final Corruption of Joe Biden (Turley)

 

 

 

 

Heli
https://twitter.com/i/status/1882102112861179990

500B
https://twitter.com/i/status/1881835411238170624

4 years
https://twitter.com/i/status/1882264205988159547

Salute
https://twitter.com/i/status/1881946617672311012

Bolton
https://twitter.com/i/status/1881871704978575771

Nixon

Bondi

Dimon

Boeing

 

 

 

 

Trump appears to go in with bluster. Not sure he’s fully aware a lot has changed since he first was president. You think you get peace by threatening sanctions? Hmm. He also apparently said Ukraine lost 600,000 soldiers, and Russia over 1 million. Makes you wonder where he gets his info.

• Trump Ready To Meet With Putin ‘Anytime’ (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said that he is ready to meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin anytime in order to discuss a diplomatic settlement to the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. During a press conference at the White House on Tuesday, Trump repeated his earlier claim that if he had been president in 2022, the Ukraine crisis “would have never happened.” “Russia never would have gone into Ukraine. I had a very strong understanding with Putin,” he stressed. Trump described the Russian leader as “smart” and insisted that Putin launched the military operation in the neighboring country only because “he disrespected [then-US President Joe] Biden.” The US head of state again insisted he is now interested in swiftly finding a way to stop the Ukraine conflict, saying: “I would like to see that end.”

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “would like to have peace. He has told me that very strongly… but it takes two to tango,” Trump explained. When asked about when he is going to hold face-to-face talks with Putin, he replied by saying: “Anytime they want – I will meet.” “We are talking to Zelensky. We are going to be talking with President Putin very soon and we will see how it all happens,” the US president stressed. Trump also said that Washington would “likely” slap additional sanctions on Moscow if the Kremlin refuses to engage in peace talks, and that his administration would “look into” the possibility of providing more weapons to Ukraine. During a Russian National Security Council meeting on Monday, Putin commended Trump’s intention to resume contacts between Russia and the US, which had been halted by the Biden administration. However, he stressed that dialogue can only happen on an “equal and mutually respectful basis.”

The Russian authorities have noted Trump’s statements about Washington’s desire to restore communication links and “about the need to do everything to prevent World War Three,” Putin stressed. “Of course, we welcome such an attitude and congratulate the elected US president on taking office,” he added. The Kremlin has not yet been contacted by the White House to schedule a phone call between Putin and Trump, the Russian president’s foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov said on Tuesday. Moscow is “following media reports… that Trump allegedly instructed his team to contact Russia,” Ushakov stressed, adding that the Kremlin is open for discussions with the new US administration.

Read more …

Bluster: “I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR.”

• Trump Admits Love For Russian People And Offers Putin ‘A Deal’ (RT)

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday issued a thinly-veiled ultimatum to Russia, urging it to bring the Ukraine conflict to an end and strike a “deal,” or face new sanctions and high import tariffs. Trump issued the warning in a post on his Truth Social online platform, proclaiming his “love” for the Russian people and insisting he was “not looking to hurt Russia.” “We must never forget that Russia helped us win the Second World War, losing almost 60,000,000 lives in the process,” he wrote, exaggerating the estimated Soviet Union losses more than twofold. “All of that being said, I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR. Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE,” Trump asserted.

Should no “deal” on the matter materialize “soon” enough, Trump would “have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries.” The US president also reiterated that the Russia-Ukraine conflict “never would have started” if he had been in office. “We can do it the easy way, or the hard way – and the easy way is always better,” Trump warned Moscow. Earlier in the day, Trump reiterated his readiness to engage in talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting he’d had a “very strong understanding with” the Russian leader before. Asked when exactly the talk could happen, Trump said “anytime they want – I will meet.”

“We are talking to [Ukraine’s Vladimir] Zelensky. We are going to be talking with President Putin very soon and we will see how it all happens,” Trump said. On Monday, Putin commended Trump’s proclaimed intention to resume contact between Russia and the US, which was halted under the Biden administration. The potential dialogue, however, can only happen on an “equal and mutually respectful basis,” the president warned during a meeting of the Russian National Security Council.

Read more …

“Nothing is written that moral courage cannot overcome.”

• This Transition Is Already a Huge Historical Marker (Jeffrey Tucker)

There is plenty of time ahead for the peanut gallery to discuss the ins and outs of the daily goings-on with the new Trump administration. There will be good and bad, and everyone is free to call out which is what and can do so for fully four years. For now, we pause to consider the historic nature of what is taking place in our times and be grateful that we are all around to watch it unfold. And we should consider the lessons it offers for our own lives. There is the obvious data point that President Donald Trump is only the second nonconsecutive second-term president after Grover Cleveland. That’s interesting but hardly scratches the surface of the significance of this presidency. Anyone who prophesied two years ago that Trump would be taking the oath of office would have likely been considered a lunatic. The whole of corporate media was railing against his legacy. The historians were writing him off.

Google was gaming its search results to shame anyone who still defended him. Big tech and nearly the whole of academia were united in loathing. The sneering on late-night television was the only consistent theme. Meanwhile, the big guns were coming for him personally with indictment after indictment. There is warfare and there is lawfare but the desire to destroy is the same. There was talk of confiscating Trump Tower and even jail. The revenge fantasies were out of control, while his attorneys’ fees were sky-high, millions upon millions of dollars. There was no power center in the United States or really the world that was not overflowing with loathing and brutal attacks, including every attempted extortion and smear. It is impossible to not give Trump personal credit for seeing his way through a series of threats and attacks that would have broken even the strongest character.

Somehow he managed to get through it all with his physical and mental well-being not only saved but even strengthened. How did he sleep? How did he keep his spirits high? How did he see the light at the end of this long, dark tunnel? It’s unfathomable. I don’t care what your politics are: If you cannot see this example of steadfastness and courage as inspiring, there is something wrong. Is there anything wrong in your life to compare? It’s doubtful. He made it through and so can you. If nothing else is true, his personal example of courage in the face of grave danger is exemplary. He had plenty of competitors for the Republican nomination, and they were right to challenge him, not based on a lack of respect but simply because of their own confidence that they could do the job.

But at this stage of history, Trump was already legendary and approaching a status of personal grandeur that no one could match. Thus did he get the nomination and his competitors defer. Panic among mainstream opinion makers ensued once again. The unthinkable happened: the first assassination attempt. It’s impossible to look at the circumstances surrounding that quarter-inch miss and not feel a sense of awe. It’s difficult to explain without taking recourse to divine intervention. Equally remarkable was Trump’s response, not to cower and collapse but stand and assure the people for whom he felt responsibility that he was alive. And he used that precious and catastrophic moment to rally the people with immortal words, fist in the air.

Will that moment go down in history? It became obvious in the days following that the powers that be did not want it to do so. Within a week or so, it was hard to find information about this at all, as the major national media simply stopped talking about it. That left it to the masses of regular people who simply could not suppress their astonishment at what transpired. Alternative media swung into action as did the meme makers and the merchants with shirts, cups, and posters. There was to be no burying this event.

Our times are absolutely desperate for examples of masculine heroism. The culture has been nearly purged of such, from movies to television to music. What Trump did was countercultural in every sense of the term: It went against the grain and disturbed the powers that be. This event became a mighty symbol of cultural renewal, a template for an entire generation to understand the sacrifices that are often necessary for success. Behind the scenes, the Trump loyalists were hard at work, mostly in private by design, and with one focus: Get him to a second term. How in the world could they have confidence that this was possible? It comes down to one word—math. They knew what the whole of mainstream culture denied, namely that the results of the 2020 election were not mathematically possible.

Read more …

“..the EU leadership continues to advocate for liberal policies on migration, family, and gender issues..”

• Trump’s Sweeping Orders Will ‘Transform’ The World – Orban (RT)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has endorsed the executive orders signed by US President Donald Trump immediately after his inauguration on Monday, claiming they will transform the world. Trump signed a slew of mandates on his first day back in office, aimed at reversing a number of policies pursued by the administation of Joe Biden. Orban, a strong supporter of Trump, took to X on Tuesday to congratulate the newly inaugurated US president, remarking that his executive orders would “transform not only the US, but the entire world.” He further commented that with Trump’s return to office, “the rebellion against woke liberal democracy has entered a new stage” and urged “patriotic forces to occupy Brussels.”

Orban, who views Trump’s return to the White House as a game-changer for US-EU relations, believes the new president will bring a more conservative shift to US policies, creating opportunities to challenge EU leadership. Speaking in Budapest on Monday, hours before Trump’s swearing-in, the Hungarian leader called for sensible EU leaders to recognize a shift toward a “new world order,” declaring that “soon, the sun will shine differently over Brussels.” According to Orban, Trump’s policies could deepen divisions between Washington and Brussels, where the EU leadership continues to advocate for liberal policies on migration, family, and gender issues. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto echoed Orban’s sentiments, stating that Trump’s initial executive actions indicate an end to “pro-war and pro-migration madness” and the beginning of “the era of peace, security, national sovereignty and common sense.”

The flurry of Trump’s presidential mandates incorporates various measures to ramp up security, including declaring a national emergency at the southern border, designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, as well as ending automatic birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are neither US citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Trump has repealed 78 executive orders signed by his predecessor, Joe Biden, including at least a dozen measures supporting ‘racial equity’ and combating discrimination against gay and transgender people. Regarding international agreements, Trump launched a US withdrawal from the World Health Organization and from the Paris Climate Agreement. The measures, which reflect Trump’s campaign pledge to restore what he has described as “common sense” governance, with a focus on national security and traditional values, elicited mixed reactions, drawing both praise and censure globally.

Read more …

“Trump is impulsive and it’s impossible to know what he may decide to do next.”

• EU and UK ‘Prepared’ For Trump – Politico (RT)

The European Union and the United Kingdom are well prepared for a possible trade war with the United States, Politico has reported, citing sources familiar with the matter. On his first day back in the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order outlining an ‘America First’ trade policy, directing federal agencies to review existing trade agreements with partner countries. Last month, Trump urged the EU to purchase more American oil and gas or face a barrage of tariffs. According to Politico, the European Commission has confirmed that it was taking the offer seriously and would follow up on it. “While it’s clear Europe doesn’t want to be at odds with the United States, it has also done much more work to prepare for conflicts this time than it had ahead of Trump’s first term,” the publication wrote on Wednesday.

In 2018 Brussels was caught off guard by sudden US tariffs on steel and aluminum. In response, the EU imposed retaliatory tariffs on a range of US goods worth €2.8 billion ($2.9 billion), including iconic American products such as motorcycles and bourbon whiskey. The EU and the UK have been “war-gaming scenarios” for months and have prepared an “arsenal of weapons for a trade war,” wrote Politico. According to the publication’s sources, officials hope Trump can be persuaded not to hit European exports with punitive tariffs but have readied a wide array of potential responses, including retaliatory tariffs.

European leaders are also concerned about the implications of Trump’s stance on NATO and support for Ukraine. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky on Tuesday urged Europe to bolster its own defense capabilities, questioning whether the US will maintain its commitment to European security under Trump’s leadership. European leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, have been swiftly preparing strategies to demonstrate their readiness to shoulder responsibilities and engage in future negotiations with Trump, wrote Politico. The outlet concluded by saying that “Trump is impulsive and it’s impossible to know what he may decide to do next.” The view was echoed on Wednesday by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who argued that US foreign policy remains “completely unpredictable.”

Read more …

“Trump 2.0 will be a lot more direct and assertive administration this time around.”

• The Second Era of Trump Begins (Wegmann)

Under the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, Donald Trump was again inaugurated, this time as the 47th president of the United States, capping a historic return to power that serves as a resounding rebuke to the established political order. Said the returning president after taking the oath of office, “The golden age of America begins right now.” Outgoing Vice President Harris, his rival, observed without emotion during the remarks of the new president, and an equally blank-faced now former President Biden sat with his head propped up in his hand. Thus began the second era of Trump.

His was an uphill path back to the White House, marked not just by the normal battles of politics but by legal prosecutions and two failed assassination attempts. “I felt then and believe even more so now,” Trump said recalling the moment last summer when a bullet came millimeters from killing him, “that my life was saved for a reason; I was saved by God to make America great again.” When Secret Service agents covered him with their bodies in Butler, Pennsylvania, a bloodied Trump pumped his fist in defiance and shouted, “Fight, fight, fight!” At his second inaugural, he defined that work, declaring “My recent election is a mandate to completely and totally reverse a horrible betrayal and all these many betrayals that have taken place and give people back their faith, their wealth, their democracy and indeed their freedom. From this moment on, America’s decline is over.”

He said the date would be forever immortalized as “Liberation Day,” promising hundreds of executive actions that would reverse and make only a memory of the Biden presidency. His administration will declare a national emergency at the border and designate drug cartels as terrorist organizations. He vowed to put an end to the government practices of “socially engineering race and gender” into every aspect of life, “all government censorship,” and even birthright citizenship. He marshaled the 19th-century rhetoric of American exceptionalism and nationalism, casting an eye on both new lands on Earth and in the cosmos. “We are taking it back,” Trump said of the Panama Canal. “We will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars,” he added later, predicting that an American flag would soon be planted on Martian soil.

Mars may be beyond his reach. The federal register is not. The Trump administration placed a desk on stage at the Capitol One Arena in downtown Washington, D.C. His second presidency is expected to begin with a live display of authority as he signs executive order after executive order. On the steps of the U.S. Capitol, Trump vowed eight years ago that “American carnage stops here and right now.” He’s made the same promise but without much of the lofty rhetoric. Instead, the new president was more workmanlike.

Mick Mulvaney, who served as his White House chief of staff, told RealClearPolitics to expect that “Trump 2.0 will be a lot more direct and assertive administration this time around.” A political apprentice no more, Trump returns to power after both remaking the Republican Party in his own image and shifting public opinion on everything from immigration policy to the old consensus on relations with China. And this time, the president has surrounded himself not with converts, but with a Cabinet of true believers in his vision. They were all there to watch their new boss.

Read more …

“We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country..”

• Trump Begins Deep State Purge At DOJ (ZH)

President Donald Trump has begun delivering on a central promise of his historic 2024 campaign by removing officials who obstruct his America First agenda. Numerous top officials have been fired at the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, which oversees the country’s immigration courts, NBC News reports. The firings, which occurred late Monday evening, include the following officials: chief immigration judge, Sheila McNulty; the acting director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, Mary Cheng; the office’s general counsel, Jill Anderson; and its head of policy, Lauren Alder Reid, the news outlet noted. Reid told the outlet that she was ‘severely disappointed’ that nobody gave her a heads up.

“My career Senior Executive Service colleagues and I are shocked and severely disappointed in the decision to remove us from our positions without notice or cause,” she bitterly told NBC News. “We have dedicated our careers to upholding the rule of law, regardless of the administration. Our continued pursuit of justice will not be diminished.” The terminated officials were all civil servants, not political appointees. Additionally, some DOJ officials were reassigned to different roles within the agency, sources familiar with the developments told the Associated Press. Bruce Swartz, veteran head of the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs, has been shifted to another job – while George Toscas, a longtime deputy assistant attorney general in the National Security Division, was reassigned.

Toscas played roles in both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information and Trump’s classified documents probe. Nearly two dozen officials have been moved to new roles, AP said. Trump, who recently faced twin (now closed) investigations from Biden-DOJ-appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith, vowed through his latest White House campaign to “demolish the ‘deep state.” “We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country,” Trump pledged in Windham, New Hampshire in a 2023 speech. Nonetheless, Trump’s efforts to improve the DOJ is already being met with resistance and chicanery from the Left.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the confirmation hearing for attorney general nominee Pam Bondi by one week due to an unnamed Democrat lawmaker. The hearing, originally planned to advance Bondi’s nomination for a full Senate vote, has been rescheduled for January 29th. Bondi, who served as Florida’s first female Attorney General, has vowed to restore a “one tier of justice for all” if confirmed to lead the DOJ. “My overriding objective will be to return the Department of Justice to its core mission of keeping Americans safe and vigorously prosecuting criminals, and that includes getting back to basics, gangs, drugs, terrorists, cartels, our border and our foreign adversaries,” she testified during her confirmation process. “I believe we are on the cusp of a new golden age where the Department of Justice can and will do better if I am confirmed.”

Read more …

“That is the agenda of the US Democrat Party. It is also the agenda of the ruling American elite, because it destroys society and leaves them in control.”

• Trump Signs Executive Order to Fire Top Career Federal Managers Faster (PCR)

Trump keeps doing the right things. The Reagan administration certainly could have used this ability to keep a Democrat civil service from sandbagging its policies. The civil service, indeed, the entire cabinet level Justice Department and the FBI were completely politicized by the Biden Democrats. US Rep. Gerry Connolly, Democrat from Virginia, is up in arms against Trump’s executive order. But Connolly had no objections when the Democrats completely politicized the US Department of Justice (sic) and the FBI and turned them into weapons against Trump Republicans. .

When I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, in one of the departments that reported to me was a senior executive civil service manager who came to work drunk daily. The department’s personnel said it was demoralizing. I spoke with the source of trouble and found that he wasn’t interested in a paid leave to get himself back into performance mode. I decided that I would have to fire him and found that to fire him I had for one year to assign him tasks, evaluate his performance of the tasks, go before a board and convince the board that he failed to perform the assigned tasks. In other words, I would be completely distracted and used up in the effort it required for a presidential appointee to fire one non-performing and uncooperative senior civil servant. To get rid of one non-performing civil servant would have drained my time and energy from the task that President Reagan assigned me.

I solved the problem by giving the position away to an administrative department in the Treasury that was glad to grow by one more person. When a president is elected, it means that the voters have chosen his policies. To have the policies blocked and derailed by unelected bureaucrats is an absurdity. The bureaucracy is supposed to serve the president, not oppose him. They have to be equally supportive of Democrats and Republicans, not the ally of one against the other. Democrat Rep. Gerry Connolly is a good example of what I mean by the institutionalized establishment and the many ways the establishment has to make a president serve them and not the American people. Connolly has already on the first day of Trump’s second term introduced the “Saving the Civil Service Act,” which is intended to stop Trump from requiring government employees to corporate with the will of the people.

MAGA Americans need to comprehend that Trump’s re-election is only the beginning of the fight. Trump and his administration are essentially isolated. The Democrats are opposed to the traditional America of MAGA Americans. Democrats want the US and Western Civilization to be held accountable for all of the alleged crimes, some real, some invented, associated with US and Western dominance. They want all sexual preference legitimized, including that of “minor directed persons” formerly known as pedophiles. They want heterosexual males punished for being interested in women. They want to brainwash white kids that they and their parents and grandparents are racists and to convince them that they have been born into the wrong body.

The Democrat Party is the operative division of the Cultural Marxists who teach that the way to overthrow a society is “to march through the institutions,” corrupting them and turning them against the country. From the standpoint of Democrats and the Woke left, the ideal America is a Sodom and Gomorrah Tower of Babel. That is the agenda of the US Democrat Party. It is also the agenda of the ruling American elite, because it destroys society and leaves them in control. Trump, and I think he realizes it, is in a fight for the life of America. The Establishment controls all of society’s institutions. Trump knows it and is attacking them head on. The outcome of the fight depends on the awareness, intelligence, and commitment of the majority of the American people. Both the people and Trump can fail. If they do, America is lost.

Read more …

“..the administration never gave any promises to help Ukraine take back the land Russian forces had captured..”

• A Ukrainian Victory Was Never Biden’s Goal: Time Magazine (Antiwar)

President Biden spent hundreds of billions of dollars supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia, but according to a report from Time Magazine, a Ukrainian victory was never his goal. Throughout the nearly three-year proxy war, the Biden administration never set any clear goals and only repeated mantras, such as the promise to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” Eric Green, who was on Biden’s National Security Council at the time of the invasion, told Time that the administration never gave any promises to help Ukraine take back the land Russian forces had captured. “We were deliberately not talking about the territorial parameters,” Green said. “That was not going to be a success story ultimately. The more important objective was for Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, democratic country free to pursue integration with the West.”

The report said Biden set three objectives for the war: ensure Ukraine would survive as a sovereign state, keep the US and its allies united, and avoid a direct war with Russia. However, there was another goal not mentioned in the report: weakening Russia, something then-Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin acknowledged back in April 2022 after his first trip to Ukraine during the war. Austin’s trip came after the US and its allies discouraged peace talks between Russia and Ukraine even though there was a deal on the table that could have led to a Russian withdrawal in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality.

On their way out, Biden administration officials claimed the proxy war was a success despite Ukraine’s lack of a path toward victory. “It’s unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” Green told Time. “Because there is so much suffering for Ukraine and so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.” The Time report noted that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who defined victory as expelling Russian forces and taking Crimea, recently complained about Biden despite the massive amount of aid he provided. “With all due respect to the United States and the administration,” Zelensky told podcast host Lex Fridman, “I don’t want the same situation like we had with Biden. I ask for sanctions now, please, and weapons now.”

Read more …

Pure insanity.

• Kiev Closest To Joining EU – Serbian President (RT)

Ukraine is closer to joining the EU than Serbia or any other candidate country, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has said. Vucic told Pink TV on Wednesday that the countries’ candidacy was among the issues he discussed with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky during their meeting on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland earlier in the day. “When it comes to joining the EU, Ukraine is closer than us… probably closer than anyone else, to it,” he said. Belgrade “has been on this path for much longer,” but Kiev has an advantage due to “political reasons,” the president said, apparently referring to the military and political support that Brussels has been providing to Ukraine during the conflict with Russia.

Serbia became a candidate for EU membership in 2012. However, the accession talks have been hampered by the Kosovo issue, as Belgrade refuses Brussels’ demands to agree to also provide candidate status to the breakaway region, arguing that it would be tantamount to the recognition of its independence. EU officials also have concerns about Serbia’s close ties to Russia and the rule of law and media freedom in the country. Ukraine and another former Soviet Republic, Moldova, were granted EU candidate status in June 2022, several months after the escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Brussels’ move was widely seen as a political snub to Moscow. Kiev’s aspirations to join NATO have been singled out by Moscow as one of the main reasons it launched its military operation almost three years ago.

However, Russia initially said that it would have no issue with Ukraine becoming an EU member. Moscow changed its stance in 2022, when Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said “the EU has turned from a constructive economic platform… into an aggressive militant player that declares its ambitions far beyond the European continent.” Last year, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that Ukraine and Moldova are not fit to join the EU and that their inclusion might “have a very negative impact on the prospects for the existence of this union.” In addition to Serbia, Ukraine and Moldova, candidates for EU membership include Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Turkey.

Read more …

“European businesses and industries cannot focus on development goals and growth opportunities when there is a war going on..”

• Hungary Blocks Renewal of Sanctions Against Russia – Bloomberg (RT)

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban is blocking the extension of sanctions the European Union imposed on Russia over the Ukraine conflict, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday. The penalties, set to expire on January 31, require unanimous approval from the bloc’s 27 member states every six months. No alternative plan currently exists to extend the sanctions if Hungary continues its protest, the publication has said, citing several unnamed diplomats. Orban is a frequent critic of the EU’s sanctions regime. He reiterated on Tuesday his position that the fifteen rounds of restrictions imposed on Moscow are causing more harm to the bloc’s economies.

“It is time to throw sanctions out the window,” he said in an interview with Kossuth Radio last Friday, adding that the goal for the EU in 2025 should be to “establish a sanction-free relationship with Russia.” The bloc’s ambassadors will hold multiple meetings this week to break the deadlock, Bloomberg said. If they fail, the issue will be escalated to its foreign ministers, according to the article. They are set to meet on January 27 in Brussels, just days before the sanctions are due to expire. According to a Bloomberg report in December, Orban surprised his counterparts at an EU summit by stating he was not ready to support the extension of sanctions until US President Donald Trump assumed office. T

he Financial Times previously reported that EU officials are concerned that Trump could overturn some of the US restrictions against Russia, “simply because they were taken by [Joe] Biden.” However, Trump threatened new sanctions and high import tariffs on Wednesday, urging Russia to bring the Ukraine conflict to an end and strike a “deal.” Orban has long been at odds with Brussels over its approach to Ukraine, opposing both aid to Kiev and sanctions on Moscow. Tensions grew further after he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin as part of his Ukraine ‘peace mission’ in July 2024. The EU declared the elimination of its reliance on Russian energy as a key priority after the Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022.

Sanctions and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines later that year have led to a dramatic drop in Russia’s gas supplies to the bloc, resulting in a spike in energy prices and soaring inflation. Orban previously said that European businesses and industries cannot focus on development goals and growth opportunities when there is a war going on, so everything needs to be done to end the Ukraine conflict. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto warned in October that Hungary could block EU sanctions on Russia if the union’s policies jeopardize its energy security. Budapest will only permit the imposition of restrictions if they retain their current exemptions on Russian energy supplies, he said.

Read more …

9.2% inflation looks bad. But when salaries rise 9%, who complains?

• Cost Of Potatoes, Cost Of Blood – When Inflation Is Lethal (Helmer)

No government can survive when it fails to control the cost in blood on the battlefield and the cost of potatoes, butter and bread on the home front. The combination at the same time is politically lethal. US President Lyndon Johnson learned this between 1965 and 1968, when the rate of domestic inflation was quadrupling and the Killed in Action (KIA) numbers in the Vietnam War jumped ninefold. On March 31, 1968, Johnson announced he was withdrawing from the presidential election later that year.* President Vladimir Putin has managed the KIA half of the lethal equation by fighting a limited expeditionary campaign in the Ukraine, restricting the General Staff’s resources, plans, targets and operations; attacking with standoff, mostly airborne weapons; shifting the casualty burden of ground fighting to socially marginal groups; and keeping the majority of voters out of the line of fire. His success is in high and stable voter support.

For the time being, the president has escaped public blame for the inflationary surge in food prices over 2024. According to one report, beets were up by 71%; potatoes by 65.4%; eggs by 48.5%; garlic by 41%; salt by 27%; vegetable oil by 24%; butter by 22%. According to the AB Centre calculation, the price of potatoes jumped 65.2%; olive oil, 35.5%; butter, 35.2%; garlic, 24.7%; beets, 22.7%. The state statistics agency Rosstat claims that the overall, official inflation rate for the country was 8.6% for 2024, while retail food price inflation, according to Rosstat was 9.5%. No one believes this, according to consumer polling and expert analyses. Consumer anticipation and expert forecasts are for the surge in food prices to continue this year at rates, depending on the food item, of between 50% and 100%.

Sergei Glazyev, a well-known public economist, presidential candidate in 2004, and a senior official of the Eurasian Economic Commission, is blunt on his attack. “Rising prices are hitting everyone’s pockets and making everyone poorer. Both citizens and businesses. Only banks are swollen with money. “The Bank of Russia’s policy is driving the economy into a stagflationary trap, in which falling production, devaluation of the ruble and rising inflation are mutually reinforcing: an increase in the key rate [21%] compresses production lending, which leads to lower volumes and higher production costs, the technical level and production efficiency decline, the competitiveness of the economy decreases, which is offset by the devaluation of the ruble. That then causes a new surge of inflation, which the Bank of Russia is trying to pay off with another increase in the key rate. After ten years of ineffectual targeting of inflation, it is clear that the continuation of this insane policy has no prospects.”

Mikhail Delyagin, deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Economic Policy, is just as scathing. He says the official rate of inflation for 2024 was not 8.5%, as the government insists, but closer to 19%; he warns it may reach 29% this year. The Central Bank interest rate of 21% is to blame: “this, in my opinion, is more destructive than the use of tactical nuclear weapons. But there is some good news. If tactical nuclear weapons are suddenly used against us, it will certainly be a severe shock and many people will die, but for the economy as a whole it will not be a greater shock than the policy of Elvira Sakhipzadovna Nabiullina. And [Finance Minister] Anton Germanovich Siluanov, who should also not be forgotten.”

“However, as we know, at the December 20 [2024] meeting, the Central Bank did not raise the key rate to 23 percent once again, as many, including me, expected. This is probably a good signal, because by raising the key rate in conditions of a shortage of money supply, the Bank of Russia thereby accelerates inflation. So far, Elvira Sakhipzadovna has refused to further accelerate inflation, but there is no guarantee that she will not return to this practice at the beginning of next year.”

So serious has been the failure of Central Bank Governor Nabiullina to halt inflation, and so widespread is public suspicion of her competence and intentions, on January 13 the Central Bank issued a public release denying that Nabiullina is planning a freeze on Russian individual savings by blocking withdrawals from bank accounts. “It is quite obvious that in any market economy, of which bank lending is an integral part, such a step is unthinkable,” the Central Bank has announced on Telegram. “Firstly, it will immediately undermine confidence in the banking system and put an end to lending to the economy. Secondly, freezing deposits will not help reduce inflation. People will rush to invest money not in deposits, but in goods and real estate with the corresponding sad consequences for rising prices.”

National polling of public attitudes towards leading officials has never identified Nabiullina positively. In open-ended questioning of those whom voters trust, Nabiullina’s name has not come up. Instead, she appears fifteenth on the countrywide list of officials and politicians who are distrusted – she ranks equal to the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov; State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, and the Mayor of Moscow, Sergei Sobyanin. No critic of the domestic inflation and Central Bank policy mentions President Putin. He is understood, however, to be Nabiullina’s protector against her domestic critics. In the past month, however, he has been pressed to qualify this.

At his press conference on December 19, the day before the Central Bank met to decide whether to raise the interest rate to 23%, Putin said: “Only yesterday, while preparing for today’s event, I talked to the Central Bank Governor, and Elvira Nabiullina told me that the inflation rate has already reached about 9.2–9.3 percent year-to-date. That said, salaries have increased by 9 percent, and I am talking about an increase in real terms, minus inflation. In addition, disposable incomes have also increased. So, the overall situation is stable and, let me reiterate, solid.”

Read more …

“Imperial decline is over. Embrace the new, brutally benign Empire.”

• The Age of Interplanetary Exceptionalism (Pepe Escobar)

Let’s start with the key take away: Manifest Destiny reaching the stars. Literally. Trump 2.0 – the greatest show on earth – did start with a (big) bang: “We will pursue our Manifest Destiny into the stars.” And that means planting the American flag on Mars. The real thing. Not a Netflix flick. No wonder platinum sidekick Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO, achieved instant rapture. Welcome to Interplanetary Exceptionalism. Literally. As in the land of the free, home of the brave, in this new golden era, will be “far more exceptional than ever before”. Imperial decline is over. Embrace the new, brutally benign Empire. Or else. In practical terms, it all started, predictably, with a flurry of executive orders – like a psychedelic vortex. Time to send troops to the southern border (El Paso is already blocked) to stop the illegal immigrant “invasion”; declare drug cartels as terrorist organizations; and rename the Gulf of Mexico “Gulf of America”.

Add to it declaring a state of emergency to boost energy production: “We’re going to be using our emergency powers to allow countries and entrepreneurs and people with a lot of money build big plans, AI plans. We need double the energy that we already have.” That’s code for the Empire necessarily exercising total control on AI and massive, energy-consuming AI data centers. In between, Trump 2.0 will suspend every “foreign aid” scheme for 90 days to assess their “consistency with U.S. national interests and foreign policy goals” (Translation: Kiev, run for cover.) Trump 2.0 will recognize only two genders – male and female; get “wokeness the hell out of our military immediately and make it like it used to be”; and “take back” the Panama Canal (“American Canal”, anyone?)

And never forget the intimation of a Big Trade War: possible 25% tariffs slapped on Canada and Mexico starting February 1st, to force negotiations. And further on down the road, the target will be the EU: Brussels is already on deep freak out mode. Tik Tok, who’s there? On the domestic front, one of the most intriguing gambits is the Tik Tok dossier: “U.S. Tik Tok deal may be worth a trillion dollars”, the President said. Buying 50% of Tik Tok might be a joint venture. With essential input by Trump’s son Barron, Tik Tok de facto helped Trump and Republicans to gain no less than 36% of the youth vote. The possible Tik Tok deal essentially forces China to split 50% of ownership with American shareholders – so it may continue to sell ads in the U.S. This is all about financial gains linked to advertising.

The equity structure of Tik Tok is quite intriguing. 20% is held by the founder, Zhang Yiming. Other 20% is held by Tik Tok’s employees around the world. The remaining 60% is held by three American funds. So the U.S. in fact has long held more than 50% of the shares. The difference now is that Trump/the U.S. government want to force founder Zhang Yiming to sell his shares. Now imagine a parallel world where Brussels would force 50% of YouTube or X to be bought by a European oligarch so it would be allowed to do business in Europe (this in fact might even actually happen one day).

Read more …

Yeah, people really want more mRNA.

• Oracle Boss Pledges Individual AI MRNA Cancer Vaccines (RT)

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison has announced that his company is developing an AI-driven approach to creating personalized cancer vaccines. He highlighted that by utilizing artificial intelligence, an mRNA vaccine can be produced “robotically” in approximately 48 hours. Ellison’s remarks came as President Donald Trump hosted him and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, as well as CEO Masayoshi Son of the Japanese investment firm SoftBank, at the White House on Tuesday to announce the launch of Stargate – a new initiative set to invest up to $500 billion in artificial intelligence infrastructure. Welcoming the program, Ellison said that “one of the most exciting things we’re working on, using the tools that Sam [Altman] and [Masayoshi Son] are providing, is a cancer vaccine.” He explained that the novel approach is two-pronged, with AI first being deployed to detect “little fragments of those [cancer] tumors float[ing] around in your” blood sample.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules carry the genetic directions cells need to make proteins. On top of this early cancer detection, “once we gene-sequence that cancer tumor, you can then vaccinate the person – design a vaccine for every individual person that vaccinates them against that cancer,” the tech executive stressed. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman similarly predicted that “we will be amazed at how quickly we’re curing this cancer and that one – and heart disease.” The US president hailed Stargate as a “monumental undertaking” and a “resounding declaration of confidence in America’s potential” that would create around 100,000 new jobs, while ensuring the “future of technology” in the US amid its competition with China. During Tuesday’s event, Ellison stated that the first Stargate data centers are already under construction in Texas.

Among Trump’s first decisions in office on Monday was the reversal of an executive order issued by his predecessor Joe Biden in 2023 that aimed to mitigate AI risks. Last week, MIT Technology Review reported that OpenAI, in collaboration with Retro Biosciences, a start-up, had developed a new language model named GPT-4b micro, which is specifically designed to help scientists extend the human lifespan. The new technology has apparently enabled researchers to more effectively redesign proteins in a way that improves stem cell production. The latter play a key role in regenerative medicine as they are able to differentiate into various cell types, offering potential treatments for age-related diseases.

CHD
https://twitter.com/i/status/1882097905991057837

Read more …

Solid explanation.

• Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Real (Ryan McMaken)

Donald Trump yesterday issued a new executive order declaring that so-called “birthright citizenship” does not apply to the children of foreign nationals residing illegally within the United States. The order reads, in part: “(a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

There is a common misconception in the United States that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution mandates that the US government grant citizenship to anyone and everyone born within the borders of the United States. This misconception is largely due to the fact that, for several decades, US courts and technocrats have conspired to redefine the original meaning of the amendment, and thus apply it to every child of every tourist and foreign national who happens to be born on this side of the US border. Some have even attempted to define access to birthright citizenship as some sort of natural right. This is a common tactic among some libertarians who have twisted the idea of property rights to extend the idea of a “right” to the governmental administrative act known as “naturalization.”

Even when looking at the issue strictly in terms of procedural legal rights, however, it is clear that the current definition of birthright citizenship is in conflict with the law as originally intended and interpreted. To understand the central point of contention, let’s note the text of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, which states that citizenship shall be extended to: “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Note that there are two qualifying phrases here. The persons in question must be both born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It is this second qualification that remains a matter of debate. What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? This issue is explained by legal scholar Hans Spakovsky who notes that advocates of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States…

“…erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike. But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment. This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.“

The courts themselves have historically recognized this distinction, noting that the whole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves who obviously were not connected to any other country or sovereign. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), the court ruled: That [the Fourteenth Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. That second sentence is key: ”The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was further confirmed by the Court in 1884 (in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94) when the Court stated that the idea of birthright citizenship did not apply to Native American tribes which were nonetheless within the borders of the United States:

“[The Fourteenth Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

In short, the court recognized that the tribal lands were within the legal jurisdiction of the United States, but this did not mean that everyone born within those borders was automatically granted citizenship. Those tribal members believed to be subjects of “foreign” tribal governments were therefore not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in a way that conferred automatic citizenship. Congress further reinforced the court’s interpretation by adopting new legislation granting citizenship to all tribal members in 1924. Had the Fourteenth Amendment really granted automatic citizenship to everyone born within the borders of the United States, no such legislation would have been necessary.

In the year 2024, however, advocates of the new and novel interpretation of “birthright citizenship” insist that the child of foreign nationals automatically becomes a citizen of the United States based entirely on the location of birth. This is a rather odd way of doing things. In historical practice nearly everywhere, citizenship depends largely on the citizenship of parents, or on the parents’ place of birth, and not on the place where parents happen to temporarily reside when the child is born. Thus, historically and globally, the child of foreign nationals is himself a foreign national. This is true, for instance, of children born to American nationals overseas.

Read more …

“For a president who liked to call others “lying dog-faced pony soldiers,” Biden proved that, in the world of political corruption, the ponies are entirely optional.”

• The Final Corruption of Joe Biden (Turley)

With only 15 minutes to go as president, Joe Biden snatched infamy from the jaws of obscurity. With record-low polling and widely viewed as a “failed” president, Biden completed his one-man race to the bottom of ethics by issuing preemptive pardons to members of his own family. The pardons were timed to guarantee that the media would not focus on yet another unethical act by this president. He need not have worried. For four years, the media worked tirelessly to deny or deflect the corruption scandal surrounding the Biden family. The pardoning of James Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John Owens and Francis Biden brought an inescapable clarity to the corruption of what is known in Washington as Biden Inc.

I have written about the Biden family’s corruption for decades. Influence-peddling has always been the favorite form of corruption in Washington, but this city has never seen the likes of the Biden family. Millions of dollars were secured from foreign sources and distributed to various Biden family members. Biden repeatedly lied about the influence peddling. He long denied knowing about his son’s foreign clients or business. He denied ever meeting Hunter’s clients. Later, photos and emails showed that Biden had clearly met these clients and knew about the business deals. He was fully aware that his family was cashing in on his name and various offices. Even Biden’s claims about handling the Trump cases were recently contradicted.

While long claiming that he left these cases to the Justice Department and took no position on the merits, the Washington Post recently reported that Biden was irate over the failure to prosecute Trump before the election. He also reportedly lashed out at Attorney General Merrick Garland and said he regretted his appointment in light of the failure to nail Trump. One of the most glaring lies was that he would never pardon his son. Few people believed him. Indeed, Hunter Biden’s bizarre criminal defense made no sense unless he knew that he had a pocket pardon if all else failed. Once he was forced out of the presidential race, Biden was freed up to sign a pardon for any and all crimes committed over a ten-year period by his son. He insisted that he really hadn’t been lying. He claimed that no ordinary person would have been tried for his son’s crimes — a manifestly untrue statement. He also emphasized that he had to take this step as a father of a son who was a hopeless addict and has now been clean for years.

However, the latest family pardon shatters even that rationalization. These Bidens are not even charged with any crimes, but Biden wanted to give them cover from any possible prosecution for anything. It was the ultimate sign of contempt for the intelligence of the American public and the integrity of his office. Biden has long exercised situational ethics and, with his powers coming to an end, the situation demanded that he cash out before his credit ended. In granting these pardons, Biden was seeking to protect not just his family but also himself. He was the object of the influence peddling and repeatedly lied to bury the scandal. This insulation of his family serves to move the threat farther from himself. Biden, however, may have been too clever by half this time. In the final moments of his presidency, He broke into the open and exposed not just himself but his allies in the media.

Reporters are now fully visible as willing dupes in one of the greatest corruption scandals in the history of this country. In his pardon statement, Biden insisted that “the issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.” Of course, that is the very opposite of what most people will conclude. More importantly, the pardons will not end the threat to his family. Figures such as James Biden have been accused of lying to Congress about the influence-peddling operation. He can still be subpoenaed and, if he lies, he can be charged with a new crime.

Indeed, after James Biden’s pardon, it will be argued that he has less basis to claim the right to remain silent about any alleged crimes committed during the period for which the pardon applies. (He could argue that there is a danger of state charges, but that is less credible due to the running of statutes of limitation and other factors.) The pardons, if anything, make such an investigation even more compelling for those who want answers to longstanding questions of corruption. Biden sealed his legacy with a finality that escapes most presidents. While his diminished mental capacity will remain an issue for historians, his longstanding lack of ethics was conclusively established with these pardons. It was Biden’s final act of corruption. For a president who liked to call others “lying dog-faced pony soldiers,” Biden proved that, in the world of political corruption, the ponies are entirely optional.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

WHO

Ball skills
https://twitter.com/i/status/1882037573075521761

Nara
https://twitter.com/i/status/1882080746212593767

Awesome

Moose

Nureyev

 

 

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