Aug 092025
 
 August 9, 2025  Posted by at 9:51 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  45 Responses »


Heinrich Hofmann Christ and the Rich Young Man 1889

 

Trump Reveals Time And Place Of Putin Summit: Alaska August 15 (RT)
Putin Doesn’t Need To Meet Zelensky For Russia-US Summit – Trump (RT)
Polish News Outlet Claims Insider Info on Trump-Putin Tentative Agreement (CTH)
Oil Tumbles On Report Of US-Backed Russia-Ukraine Truce Deal (ZH)
What Putin And Trump Want From The Ukraine Peace Deal (Bobrov)
‘Vital’ Poll Shows Ukrainians Are For Peace – Putin Envoy Dmitriev (Sp.)
China Ready to Promote Peace & Negotiations on Ukraine – Xi (Sp.)
Going, Going Gone. . . . (Kunstler)
Appeals Court Nukes Boasberg’s Contempt Order In Trump Deportations Case (ZH)
New Daily Fine Could Sap Resolve Of Texas Dems Who Fled State (ZH)
Orban Calls For Russia-EU Summit (RT)
Trump Yelled At Netanyahu For Dismissing Gaza Starvation – Media (RT)
US Consulting Firm Modelled Mass Resettlement of Palestinians to Africa (RT)
US Slaps Tariffs On Gold Bars (RT)
Swiss President Blamed For ‘Disastrous’ Deal With Trump – FT (RT)

 

 

https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1953415357869281408

jobs
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1953555467189506327

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1953611969803800802

100
https://twitter.com/TheGabriel72/status/1953435750927929474

Zero seats

jay

 

 

 

 

With history in mind, a great location.

What a move. Zelensky and the EU left in the dark by the curb. Who saw that coming? We want peace!

Trump Reveals Time And Place Of Putin Summit: Alaska August 15 (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said that he will meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska next Friday. Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov confirmed immediately afterward that Moscow and Washington will be working on making the Alaska summit happen. “The highly anticipated meeting between myself, as President of the United States of America, and President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, will take place next Friday, August 15, 2025, in the Great State of Alaska,” Trump announced on Truth Social on Friday. According to the Kremlin, the upcoming meeting will revolve around reaching a longstanding peace in the Ukraine conflict.

Moscow expects that the two leaders’ next meeting after this will take place in Russia, the presidential aide said. Trump has officially been sent an invitation, he added. The US president’s special envoy Steve Witkoff visited Moscow on Wednesday for a meeting with Putin that Trump later called “highly productive.” The US leader has expressed his growing impatience with the pace of peace talks dedicated to resolving the Ukraine conflict, and has threatened to impose further secondary sanctions on Russian trade partners. According to the Kremlin, Moscow had received an “acceptable” offer from the US during Witkoff’s visit.

Russia had long said that it was interested in a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict, but has insisted on one that brings about a permanent and stable peace. Russia and Ukraine have held three rounds of direct talks in Istanbul: in May, June, and late July. While the sides have failed to reach a breakthrough, they agreed to exchange prisoners of war and the bodies of fallen soldiers. Russia insists that a sustainable peace deal must include Ukraine’s commitment to stay out of NATO, demilitarization, and the recognition of the new territorial reality on the ground. Kiev has rejected these terms.

Read more …

Zelensky has nothing that Putin wants.

Putin Doesn’t Need To Meet Zelensky For Russia-US Summit – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said he is willing to hold a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin regardless of whether Putin meets with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. On Thursday, the New York Post cited a White House official as saying, “Putin must meet with Zelensky for the meeting [with Trump] to occur.” The US president, however, was quick to reject the report. “He doesn’t, no,” Trump told reporters when asked whether Putin would have to first meet Zelensky. “They would like to meet me, and I’ll do whatever I can to stop the killing.”

Zelensky has repeatedly called on Putin to hold in-person talks with Zelensky to end the conflict. The Russian president has said he has “nothing in principle” against a meeting, but reiterated that “certain conditions must be created” for it to take place. He has also cast doubt on Zelensky’s legal capacity to sign binding agreements, as the Ukrainian leader’s presidential term expired last year and he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law. This has prompted Moscow to declare him “illegitimate.”

Trump’s remarks come after Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov said Putin and Trump could have a face-to-face meeting as soon as next week. Later, Putin floated the United Arab Emirates as a possible location for the summit. The summit developments follow a visit to Moscow by Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, who held three-hour talks with Putin over the Ukraine conflict. The Kremlin described the discussion as “constructive,” while the White House said the meeting went better than expected. Trump also later commented that “great progress was made,” although no specific outcomes have been detailed.

Read more …

“..does not include guarantees against NATO expansion – one of Moscow’s consistent demands. Russia did not receive any promises that military support for Ukraine would cease.”

Clever:
“De facto recognition of Russian-occupied territories by postponing the status issue for 49 or 99 years.”

Polish News Outlet Claims Insider Info on Trump-Putin Tentative Agreement (CTH)

I would approach this Polish media report with a note of caution and skepticism. The reason is not what most might think about. The CIA/GCHQ will likely be conducting covert IC propaganda operations to disrupt Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin from reaching any agreement. Therefore, for the next several weeks we should watch the sourcing of the media reports to identify familiar patterns. A Polish media outlet is reporting to have gained insight into the deal carried by President Trump special envoy, Steve Witkoff. As outlined, both President Trump and President Putin would be working from this framework.

“POLAND – Although Onet does not name its sources, it says that the proposal was coordinated with European states. “We have learned that Moscow received a very favorable offer from the Trump administration,” the outlet reported.”According to Onet, the US proposal includes:
• A ceasefire in Ukraine, though not a full peace agreement.
• De facto recognition of Russian-occupied territories by postponing the status issue for 49 or 99 years.
• The lifting of most sanctions imposed on Russia and, in the long term, a return to energy cooperation namely, imports of Russian gas and oil.”

Meanwhile, the proposal reportedly does not include guarantees against NATO expansion – one of Moscow’s consistent demands. Russia did not receive any promises that military support for Ukraine would cease. However, according to the outlet, this last point is said to be acceptable to the Russians. Broadly, this type of an outline makes sense; particularly the three main points and the removal of the sanctions. President Trump has noted repeatedly it was short-sighted for the Western financial system to think they could hurt Russia directly with the 2021 economic sanctions, given the pre-existing sanctions already in place since 2014. All of my research sources in eastern Europe and Russia generally agree the 2021 sanctions regime was about Western global banking interests (CBDC), together with Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard investments.

Common Question: “What is the fundamental reason that the IC wants to prevent the US from aligning with Russia? Is it simply to keep the conflict (and money) going in Ukraine?”
My response is, No. Several facets involved:
1. Russia does not align with current global banking control. This is the background motive behind the current western sanctions’ regime. Russia does not consider the global finance system to be legitimate. From Putin’s long-held perspective the dollar is too easily weaponized for geopolitical leverage. Ironic considering that’s exactly what the sanctions are. As a consequence, the Western global banks dislike Russia immensely.

2. Ideologically, Russia is not ‘woke’ in every sense of that weird word. Even the concept of DEI is crazy from the perspective of society in Russia. The Russian economy and socioeconomic system do not recognize modern western values, ie. “wokeism”. Explaining non-merit-based DEI is one of the most unusual conversations you can have with Russian people. They cannot fathom the concept of employment, subsidy or financial benefit from gender, skin color, ethnicity or race. It doesn’t compute to them because they have no concept of the motive or intent behind DEI. Russia is the least politically correct country you could ever visit.

3. Russia is an unusual caste system that rewards those closest to govt with enhanced status. However, on the caste continuum, Vladimir Putin is more Trumpian toward this internal political dynamic. Putin recognizes that all ships must rise, not just the connected. Think of Russia like visiting Disney. Those who can afford the ‘fast-track’ pass have a better experience than the ordinary ticket holder. Putin recognizes that in the modern era this system creates national vulnerability and political instability that can be exploited by narratives from the West. An entire division of USAID was created for this task. Putin’s goal is changing this dynamic.

4. MAGA understand that Trump needs to be authoritarian in order to cleanse the govt corruption. However, our constitutional system -which was weaponized by the radical leftists- does not allow this approach. In many ways, this type of authoritarian approach is what Putin uses to ensure the same manipulation does not happen to Russia. This puts him in opposition to the global intelligence apparatus who use social friction to stir up internal trouble.

5. Finally, Vladimir Putin has often said the enemy of Russia is not Americans; the identified enemy of Russia is the CIA and UK intelligence (GCHQ). There is a big difference, and the IC feel the same toward him. Hence their activity against him on behalf of their benefactors, the London banking interests.

President Trump is appreciated in Russia because:
(A) he is also not politically correct and speaks his mind.
(B) Trump has no friends in the IC who view Trump in the same oppositional context as Putin.
(C) Trump is honest, and Russians are brutally honest people.
(D) Trump is strong but respectful toward all voices.

Read more …

Where will it be Monday?

Oil Tumbles On Report Of US-Backed Russia-Ukraine Truce Deal (ZH)

US and Russian officials are working toward an agreement on territories for a planned summit meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as early as next week, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. The US is working to get buy-in from Ukraine and its European allies on the deal, which is far from certain, the people said. Putin is demanding that Ukraine cede its entire eastern Donbas area to Russia as well as Crimea, which his forces illegally annexed in 2014. That would require Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to order a withdrawal of troops from parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions still held by Kyiv, handing Russia a victory that its army couldn’t achieve militarily since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Such an outcome would represent a major win for Putin, who has long sought direct negotiations with the US on terms for ending the war that he started, sidelining Ukraine and its European allies. What are the odds Zelensky goes for this deal… and will Europe back it? Zelenskiy risks being presented with a take-it-or-leave-it deal to accept the loss of Ukrainian territory, while Europe fears it would be left to monitor a ceasefire as Putin rebuilds his forces. Russia would halt its offensive in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine along the current battlelines as part of the deal, the people said. They cautioned that the terms and plans of the accord were still in flux and could still change. Oil prices immediately tumbled on the report…

It’s still unclear if Putin would agree to take part in a trilateral meeting with Trump and Zelenskiy next week, even if he had already struck an agreement with the US president, the people added. The Russian leader told reporters on Thursday that he didn’t object to meeting Zelenskiy under the right conditions, though he said they don’t exist now.

Read more …

“..the paradox of diplomacy: in business, a deal signed is a deal done. In geopolitics, even signed agreements can be quietly gutted after the cameras stop rolling.”

What Putin And Trump Want From The Ukraine Peace Deal (Bobrov)

Ahead of the anticipated summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, Moscow and Washington – like so many times before in the realm of diplomacy – appear to be chasing fundamentally different goals. The United States seeks to maintain the current status quo but also needs a result it can spin as “progress” on Ukraine. That could mean anything from a partial ceasefire to a full cessation of hostilities. Russia, by contrast, is looking for long-term, legally binding agreements. These would cover the full scope of Russia-US and Russia-Ukraine relations and include built-in enforcement mechanisms to prevent sabotage or unilateral withdrawal. With today’s US-Russia relations still steeped in Cold War-style hostility, the upcoming summit recalls another tense era. One might liken the two delegations to the intelligence officers who used to meet at Glienicke Bridge – the famous ‘Bridge of Spies’ – to exchange captured agents.

Like those secretive, high-stakes handoffs, diplomacy in 2025 still demands that both sides inch toward the middle to make any exchange possible. The very fact that this summit is happening suggests that the gap between Moscow and Washington has narrowed, at least tactically. Russia took the first step by hosting US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow. In the quiet language of diplomacy, the country that initiates the visit is often the more eager to make a deal. Russia’s openness to holding the summit quickly signals a willingness to negotiate. And truthfully, it’s Washington that appears more anxious to move things forward. Time, at this point, seems to favor Moscow. President Putin made that clear during his recent meeting with Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko in Valaam. Trump, on the other hand, urgently needs a foreign policy win. The White House is under fire on multiple fronts – from the looming Epstein files scandal to mass protests erupting in Democrat-controlled states over immigration policy.

Trump understands that securing peace in Ukraine could be the crown jewel in a larger global strategy. If he can notch progress in the Russia-Ukraine conflict – on top of de-escalating India-Pakistan, Thailand-Cambodia, Iran-Israel, and Armenia-Azerbaijan – he would be well-positioned to claim a ‘royal flush’ on the world stage. That, in turn, could make him a contender for the Nobel Peace Prize. But how exactly did Trump manage to extract concessions from Vladimir Putin – a veteran of global diplomacy with over 25 years of experience at the highest level? The answer lies in tactics familiar to Trump from his business career, many of which he outlined decades ago in his bestseller, The Art of the Deal. From that playbook, he appears to have used a select few strategic moves:

1) Creating artificial time pressure
Trump began by issuing a 50-day ultimatum. He warned that if no movement came from the Russian side, the US would impose sanctions targeting Russia’s shadow fleet. But just days later, he shortened the timeline dramatically – to eight days – clearly hoping to force Moscow’s hand with a sense of urgency.

2) Fostering strategic uncertainty
Witkoff’s recent visit to Moscow, successful by current standards, was wrapped in deliberate ambiguity. It was originally planned for the first weekend of August. But at the last moment, the American side requested a reschedule for August 6, citing the envoy’s packed calendar due to his parallel role in the Middle East. The unpredictability sent a signal: the US side would not play by a rigid script.

3) The good cop / bad cop routine
While American foreign policy is ultimately shaped by the president, internal dynamics still matter. Trump has surrounded himself with both hawks and doves. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg often play hardball, while Steve Witkoff takes on the more diplomatic, conciliatory role. Notably, it is always Witkoff – not Rubio – who travels to Moscow, sending a clear message about who is empowered to build bridges.

4) Instilling fear
Trump knows how to apply pressure not just with words, but with policy. While continuing negotiations with China, he slapped a 25% tariff on India – Washington’s key partner in the Indo-Pacific – just before his Ukraine deadline expired. He’s used similar tactics with Canada, the EU, and other close allies. The subtext is clear: even friends aren’t immune from tough love.

Like a spy exchange on a Cold War bridge, diplomacy is the art of meeting halfway. That principle is playing out in real time, as both sides consider where to hold the summit. The location must be neutral, protocol-friendly, and equally distant from both capitals. During UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s recent visit to Moscow, Putin floated the UAE as a potential host. The country meets all the right criteria. And under the diplomatic principle of reciprocity, Trump may have little choice but to accept.

Meanwhile, efforts are underway to prevent third parties from sabotaging the summit. Kiev, with backing from the London-Berlin-Paris axis, is pursuing two goals. The maximalist aim is to derail the bilateral format and force a trilateral meeting that includes Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. The fallback plan? Render any US-Russia resolution meaningless. In many ways, that’s the paradox of diplomacy: in business, a deal signed is a deal done. In geopolitics, even signed agreements can be quietly gutted after the cameras stop rolling.

So, will Trump’s instincts and tactics deliver a diplomatic breakthrough? The answer will come next week. But one thing is certain: whatever happens, this summit is bound to leave a mark on the annals of history.

Read more …

“..69% of Ukrainians (up from 20% in 2022) support negotiated peace as soon as possible not war..”

‘Vital’ Poll Shows Ukrainians Are For Peace – Putin Envoy Dmitriev (Sp.)

The head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and Russian special presidential envoy for economic cooperation with foreign countries, Kirill Dmitriev, ahead of the Russia-US summit, took note of a public opinion poll showing a significant increase in the number of Ukrainians who support peace through talks. Dmitriev cited relevant sociological data from the American Gallup Institute, according to which 69% of Ukrainians (up from 20% in 2022) support the earliest possible achievement of peace through negotiations, rather than war. “An absolutely vital poll before the US-Russia summit: 69% of Ukrainians (up from 20% in 2022) support negotiated peace as soon as possible not war,” he wrote on X.

Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov said Thursday morning Moscow and Washington had begun work to prepare for the upcoming Russia-US summit. American media reported on Wednesday evening that Trump wanted to meet with Putin as early as next week. Putin’s last meeting with a US leader took place in 2021 in Geneva, when the Russian president met with Joe Biden. Putin on Thursday named the UAE as one of the possible venues to meet with Trump.

Read more …

Still a BIG voice.

China Ready to Promote Peace & Negotiations on Ukraine – Xi (Sp.)

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have held a telephone conversation, the Chinese Central Television reported. The leaders held a telephone conversation at the initiative of the Russian side, the broadcaster reported. Beijing welcomes maintaining the contacts between Russia and the United States, Xi told Putin, according to the report. “China welcomes Russia-US contacts, improving relations and advancing political settlement of Ukrainian crisis,” Xi Jinping was quoted as saying by the China Central Television (CCTV) broadcaster. Commenting on the Ukrainian crisis, the president said that there is no simple solution to complex issues, adding that China will continue to promote peace and negotiations. The leaders also welcomed the high level of political mutual trust and cooperation between China and Russia, the broadcaster reported.

Read more …

“It was in the racketeering ecosystem that billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates could use their fortunes..”

Going, Going Gone. . . . (Kunstler)

In case you’re wondering why the Democratic Party is in a death spiral, it is the proportionate response to the damage they have done to American culture and politics. You might think that they fell haplessly into error, but their turn to Marxian idealism was a cover for a matrix of hustles and rackets to make up for a void of any sane political program. Coming into the 21st century, our country was beset by looming decline. Our industrial base was going, going, gone, and with it millions of well-paying blue-collar jobs, the Democratic Party base. It was replaced by a so-called “financialized economy,” which was sanitized language for sets of swindles and frauds allowed to operate in the de-regulated banking system, in concert with the politicized Federal Reserve and crooked Congressional interests — you notice how many politicians paid $175-K a year somehow acquired multi-million-dollar fortunes?

What mainly grew in this period was government and things that fed off of it, such as the war industries, computer tech allied with the Intel gang, and especially the burgeoning universe of government-sponsored non-profit advocacy orgs, which became the jobs program for otherwise unemployables churned out of higher education, a racket that fed on federal loan guarantees. It was in the racketeering ecosystem that billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates could use their fortunes to advance their own personal obsessions through webs of non-governmental orgs (NGOs) to influence public affairs. By 2016, that was really all that the Democratic Party had left. It was the source of their money and their power. They also had the accumulated political capital of race advocacy, starting with the civil rights crusades of the 1960s. After our victory over manifest evil in World War Two, the Jim Crow system had to go, or else America could not pretend to lead the so-called “free world.”

Read more …

He lost to the Supreme Court.

“..failed judicial overreach at its worst.”

Appeals Court Nukes Boasberg’s Contempt Order In Trump Deportations Case (ZH)

Activist judge James Boasberg has just been slapped down, after an appeals court removed an order which could have resulted in the Trump administration being found in contempt as part of a tense confrontation with the US District Judge. Earlier this year, Boasberg said he found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt because it purportedly violated his orders to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. However in a 2–1 decision on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit indicated that Boasberg went too far. Judge Gregory Katsas said that one of Boasberg’s orders could have been read in different ways.

“The district court here was placed in an enormously difficult position,” wrote Judge Gregory Katsas. “Faced with an emergency situation, it had to digest and rule upon novel and complex issues within a matter of hours. In that context, the court quite understandably issued a written order that contained some ambiguity.” Katsas noted that the appellate court ruling doesn’t center around the lawfulness of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act removals in March, when the administration invoked the 1798 immigration law to send over 250 Venezuelan nationals to CEDOT, El Salvador’s maximum-security prison. “Nor may we decide whether the government’s aggressive implementation of the presidential proclamation warrants praise or criticism as a policy matter,” he added. “Perhaps it should warrant more careful judicial scrutiny in the future. Perhaps it already has.”

“Regardless, the government’s initial implementation of the proclamation clearly and indisputably was not criminal.” As the Epoch Times notes further, Judge Neomi Rao described Boasberg’s decision as an “egregious” abuse of the court’s contempt power and said Boasberg had lost the authority to try and “coerce compliance” with his original order. That’s because his initial halts on the deportations had been vacated by the Supreme Court in another decision from April. One of the judges, Judge Cornelia Pillard, defended Boasberg and said the Trump administration appeared to have disobeyed his directions. “Our system of courts cannot long endure if disappointed litigants defy court orders with impunity rather than legally challenge them,” Pillard said. “This is why willful disobedience of a court order is punishable as criminal contempt.”

Read more …

Are there historical precedents?

“We’re gonna lose this vote”. “Well, not if we don’t vote at all..”

“In addition to the fine, they’ll also be hit with a bill for their pro rata share of what the House Sergeant at Arms spends to force them to come back to work.”

New Daily Fine Could Sap Resolve Of Texas Dems Who Fled State (ZH)

Democratic state representatives who fled Texas to prevent a vote on a GOP-led congressional redistricting plan are under mounting pressure to return to Austin. On Thursday, Sen. John Cornyn announced that the FBI will help Texas law enforcement track them down, pursuant to Gov Gregg Abbott’s order that they be arrested and investigated for potential bribery charges. While that makes for dramatic headlines, the AWOL Democrats face another force that may do far more to motivate their return: a daily $500 fine that didn’t exist last time they pulled this stunt. That mounting tab has already blown past past the $600 monthly salary Texas House reps receive. They also receive a $221 per diem every day the legislature is in session, but it’s not clear if they’re entitled to claim it while they’re on the lam in Chicago.

In addition to the fine, they’ll also be hit with a bill for their pro rata share of what the House Sergeant at Arms spends to force them to come back to work. Those punitive measures are a new twist, added to the state House rules after Democrats in 2021 similarly absconded in an eventually failed attempt to derail GOP-led election reforms that included a ban on drive-through voting, more stringent requirements for mail-in voting, and the criminalization of distributing mail-ballot applications. The legislators’ run-and-hide tactic is called “denying quorum,” referring to the minimum number of lawmakers present in order to conduct legislative business. By state law, the Texas House can only conduct business when two-thirds of its 150 members are present, meaning at least 51 of the state’s 62 Democrats must continue to stay away from Texas.

In addition to facing mounting individual fines that didn’t exist last time they denied quorum, Democratic leaders say many representatives’ incomes from their regular jobs was already under strain from the calling of the current special session. Most representatives have other careers, as the Texas legislature only convenes for six months every two years. One of those whiners is Rep. Gene Wu, leader of the state House Democratic Caucus, who told NBC News.. “During the special session, I can’t work. Most people can’t work. They’re away from their families. … All of us are making actual, real sacrifices to be here…There’s people who are single moms, single dads, with their kids, and we just do what we can. None of this is fun.”

Democrats have been using their quorum-break as a fundraising vehicle. However, that’s putting themselves in different kind of crosshairs, as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has said they risk felony bribery charges for accepting money “to assist in the violation of legislative duties.” On Monday afternoon, Abbott ordered the civil arrest of the AWOL Democrats. He is also working to have them removed from the legislature altogether, and use his powers under the Texas Constitution to pick their successors.

Texas Republicans currently control 25 of the state’s 38 congressional seats; the new map would likely give them 30, all of which Mr. Trump carried by at least 10 percentage points in 2024. The GOP holds a narrow 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, with four vacancies, and party leaders see Texas as central to preserving their legislative agenda. Meanwhile, Democrats across the country are threatening reprisals in the form of their own redrawing of district maps. They may be at a disadvantage, however, as Democrats have already perpetrated some of the most blatant gerrymandering of all:

Read more …

Nice twist:

“..the leaders of Germany and France – not EU officials – should directly negotiate with Russia..”

Orban Calls For Russia-EU Summit (RT)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has proposed holding a summit between Russia and the EU to address the Ukraine conflict. His remarks come shortly after the Kremlin said that Russian President Vladimir Putin could meet his US counterpart, Donald Trump, as early as next week. A member of both the European Union and NATO, Hungary has opposed Brussels’ policies on the Ukraine conflict since its escalation in February of 2022, particularly with respect to supplying Kiev with weapons and imposing sanctions on Russia. In an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday, Orban called the potential Trump-Putin meeting “good news,” suggesting it could pave the way to a ceasefire.

Orban criticized fellow EU members for not engaging in diplomacy. He said that he had long maintained that the leaders of Germany and France – not EU officials – should directly negotiate with Russia. “There should be a Russian-European summit. Because the war is in Europe,” Orban argued, insisting that such a top-level meeting should take place “as soon as possible.” Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov told reporters on Thursday that Moscow and Washington had agreed in principle that Putin and Trump hold talks as soon as next week.

US special envoy Steve Witkoff had met with Putin in Moscow the previous day, in what Trump later described as “highly productive” talks. Also on Wednesday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto stated that Ukraine can have no place in the EU and “doesn’t even belong among civilized nations,” citing a recent case in which a member of the Hungarian ethnic minority in Western Ukraine died after reportedly being beaten by draft officers. The Ukraine conflict will only be resolved when both the West and Kiev accept that Ukraine cannot be a NATO member, Orban said earlier this month.

Read more …

“..an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas.”

Trump Yelled At Netanyahu For Dismissing Gaza Starvation – Media (RT)

US President Donald Trump reportedly shouted at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a phone call after the Israeli leader attempted to downplay reports of starvation in Gaza, NBC News reported on Friday. Netanyahu has publicly claimed that “there is no starvation” in the Palestinian enclave, which is being blockaded by Israeli military forces, despite multiple claims to the contrary from medical staff in Gaza. During a recent trip to the UK, Trump pushed back, telling journalists the starvation is real. According to the outlet, Netanyahu insisted during the call that allegations of widespread hunger in Gaza were fabricated by the militant group Hamas, but Trump interrupted him, raising his voice and stating that his aides had shown him evidence to the contrary.

The conversation was reportedly initiated at Netanyahu’s request, but the exchange ended up being “mostly one-way,” with Trump doing most of the talking, according to one source. Netanyahu’s office denied the claim, calling it “complete fake news” in a brief statement. NBC News suggested that Trump has taken a personal interest in the issue due to US support for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an Israeli-affiliated organization conducting limited relief work in the enclave since May. The foundation has been shunned by the UN, which operates its own aid network in Gaza and has accused Israel of obstructing food deliveries.

This week, a group of UN experts criticized the GHF, calling it “an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas.” They accused the foundation of operating as a “tangle of Israeli intelligence, US contractors and ambiguous non-governmental entities,” rather than a legitimate relief agency. The UN estimates that nearly 1,400 people have been killed in Gaza while searching for food. Israel is currently preparing for a military operation to occupy Gaza City, marking yet another escalation in the conflict.

Read more …

Recognize insanity when you see it.

Trump will have to get rid of both Zelensky AND Netanyahu. That’s been clear for a while.

US Consulting Firm Modelled Mass Resettlement of Palestinians to Africa (RT)

US global advisory firm Boston Consulting Group (BCG) modelled the resettlement of around a quarter of all Palestinians to other countries, including Somalia, as part of plans for postwar Gaza, the Financial Times has reported. In February, US President Donald Trump suggested moving more than 2 million Palestinians out of the war-torn enclave into neighboring countries to turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has praised the idea, said on Thursday that the Jewish state will commit to a full military takeover of Gaza, to later hand it over to a transitional Arab government.

BCG’s postwar redevelopment model for Gaza envisioned relocating approximately 25% of its population to multiple nations, including Somalia and the breakaway region of Somaliland, “despite civil conflict and high levels of poverty in the region,” the FT wrote on Thursday, citing people familiar with the proposal. Washington has held preliminary talks with Somaliland about a broader deal that would establish a US military base there in exchange for the recognition of sovereignty, the FT wrote. Accepting relocated Palestinians was one of points discussed, according to the newspaper. BCG first developed its relocation model in March, working for a group of Israeli businessmen who were devising plans for postwar Gaza, the newspaper wrote.

It reportedly allowed for a number of scenarios and estimates for the cost of what was described as a “temporary relocation program.” The advisory firm’s calculations were included in slides intended for the US administration, other governments and “stakeholders,” the FT reported. The slide deck envisaged that the majority of the relocated Palestinians would not return. BCG earlier this year disavowed the controversial project and said it had fired the employees who worked on it. Key regional players have refused to participate in Trump’s relocation plan, which has been criticized by a number of Washington’s European allies, including France, Spain, and Germany. The UN has stated that the move would amount to ethnic cleansing.

Read more …

Doesn’t smell very practical.

US Slaps Tariffs On Gold Bars (RT)

The US has imposed tariffs on imports of gold bars, according to media reports on Friday, citing a notice from Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Analysts say the decision could harm Switzerland’s gold refining sector and shake up the global bullion market. According to the Financial Times, which first broke the story, CBP stated in a July 31 ruling letter that 1kg and 100-ounce gold bars – the most commonly traded formats – should fall under a customs code subject to tariffs. The reported move brings gold bars under US President Donald Trump’s new tariffs, which target dozens of trade partners, including Switzerland. Trump imposed a 39% tariff on Swiss goods last Friday after rejecting Bern’s offer of a 10% tariff in exchange for $150 billion in US-bound investment.

When the tariff campaign began in April, some commodities – including certain bullion types – were exempt. The CBP ruling, issued in response to a Swiss refinery’s request, said 1kg and 100-ounce bars are considered “semi-manufactured” goods rather than “unwrought, nonmonetary gold,” the only exempt category. Switzerland is the world’s largest gold refining hub, and bullion is one of its biggest exports to the US. Traders told Bloomberg it’s unclear whether the tariffs are already in effect. Some said CBP may have erred, calling the decision “shocking” and likely to face legal challenges. “We never ever thought that [gold bars] would be hit by a tariff,” Robert Gottlieb, a former JPMorgan Chase metals trader, said.

Christoph Wild, the president of the Swiss Association of Manufacturers and Traders of Precious Metals, told FT the ruling “deals a blow” to Swiss-US gold trade, saying the widespread belief had been that “remelted bullion was tariff-free.” Experts say the fallout could disrupt the global bullion market. Gold is often used as a safe store of value during times of political and financial uncertainty. It has seen a historic rally this year, rising 27% since the end of 2024. Following the FT report, gold futures in New York hit an all-time high, with December contracts climbing to $3,534 on Friday morning.

Read more …

From a few days ago, before the gold bar decision. She must have really pissed him off…

Swiss President Blamed For ‘Disastrous’ Deal With Trump – FT (RT)

Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter is facing backlash after trade talks with Washington collapsed following a “disastrous” phone call with US President Donald Trump, the Financial Times has reported, citing sources familiar with the matter. Trump announced a 39% levy – one of the highest globally – on Swiss goods on Friday, coinciding with Switzerland’s national day. According to an FT report published on Sunday, Swiss negotiators believed they had secured a provisional deal for a 10% tariff, similar to the UK’s arrangement. In exchange, Bern pledged nearly $150 billion in US-bound investment and remained in regular contact with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The offer was approved in early July, with Swiss officials convinced it only awaited Trump’s signature.

Keller-Sutter, who also serves as finance minister under the Swiss rotating presidency, had publicly stated last month that she had gained rare “access to Trump.” However, during a 30-minute call on Thursday – described by sources as “disastrous” – the US leader reportedly rejected the offer and instead focused on Switzerland’s $39 billion trade surplus. “The call did not go well, in the sense that from the very first minute Trump made it clear 10% was not enough, and all he could focus on was Switzerland stealing money from the US. There was nothing Keller-Sutter could say,” one source told the FT. Trump reportedly asked what more the “very wealthy” Alpine country could offer.

Swiss media called the outcome Keller-Sutter’s “biggest fiasco,” with tabloid Blick likening it to the country’s worst defeat since 1515, when Swiss troops lost to France at the Battle of Marignano. Greer later denied that a final deal had been secured, telling Bloomberg: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” The tariff hike followed Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ speech on April 2 announcing a global trade overhaul. After multiple delays and a series of negotiations, a revised executive order signed last week adjusted rates based on “trade imbalances,” with the tariffs now set to enter into force on August 7.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/1953330368385282517

RFK

RICO
https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/1953574256769741057

Spain
https://twitter.com/TheBritLad/status/1953402175960289458

Limits

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Jul 302025
 


Edward Hopper Burly Cobb’s House, South Truro 1930-33

 

Trump Issues 10-Day Ultimatum To Russia (RT)
Kremlin Responds To Trump’s Ukraine Deadline Change (RT)
‘It’s Not For You Or Trump To Dictate’ – Medvedev To Lindsey Graham (RT)
US, UK Hold Talks on Replacing Zelensky – Russian Foreign Intel (Sp.)
EU Threatens Ukraine Aid Freeze – Media (RT)
EU Roads Not Ready For War – Transport Chief (RT)
Ukrainian Troops Face ‘Critical’ Attrition – CNN (RT)
Ukrainian Army To Recruit Pensioners (RT)
New Details Emerge on Obama’s Role in Russiagate Scandal (Victor Davis Hanson)
EU’s $750bn Energy Pledge To US Is ‘Fantasy’ – Politico (RT)
Sen. Kennedy Says ‘We Need More Idiot Control’ After NYC Shooting (Margolis)
Tesla Picks Taylor, Texas for Next Gen ‘Made in the USA AI Chips’ (PJM)
DOJ Files Complaint Over Judge’s Out-of-Court Statements (Rowland)
Israel Might Annex Gaza… All Because of France? (PJM)
Trump Says He Believes Epstein ‘Stole’ Virginia Giuffre From Mar-a-Lago (JTN)
Must Watch – Tucker Carlson Interviews Richard Werner (CTH)

 

 

 

 

ADAS
https://twitter.com/newstart_2024/status/1949891547744379254
poll

lose you

 

 

 

 

Trump rightfully runs with Tulsi Gabbard’s picture of Russiagate. But he fully ignores the influence it had -and has- on US-Russia relations. He should go talk to Putin first. And, as i said, apologize.

Trump Issues 10-Day Ultimatum To Russia (RT)

Washington will impose new sanctions against Moscow if it fails to reach a deal with Kiev to settle the Ukraine conflict within ten days, US President Donald Trump stated on Tuesday. His initial deadline was due to expire in early September. Trump announced his plans to reduce the time frame during a visit to the UK on Monday. When further pressed on the issue by journalists on his way back on Tuesday, the president said it would be “ten days from today.” “And then… we’re going to put on tariffs and stuff,” he added. The new sanctions are expected to include 100% tariffs on Russian imports and secondary sanctions on countries and companies that continue to trade with the nation.

Moscow has repeatedly said it is willing to negotiate but has maintained that any talks must account for the realities on the ground and the root causes of the conflict. Commenting on Trump’s statements on Monday, the Kremlin said his words were “taken into account.” Russia will still continue its military operation but it also remains “committed to the peace process to resolve the conflict around Ukraine and to ensure our interests in the course of this settlement,” according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. On Tuesday, Trump admitted that he did not know if the new restrictions were going to work. It “may or may not affect them [Russia],” he said. Since entering office this year, Trump has repeatedly stated he wanted a quick diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict.

Trump has recently grown frustrated with what he described as the lack of progress and spoke about his “disappointment” with Russia, while threatening the country with sanctions. Moscow responded by calling such actions counterproductive. No new sanctions would prevent Moscow from continuing to “move along our independent, sovereign, and sustained path,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stated earlier this month. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said this week it was not up to Washington to “dictate” when Moscow and Kiev should negotiate. Any threat only marks “a step towards war” between Russia and the US, he warned.

Read more …

No ultimatum scares Russia. They’ve been preparing since 1991. This is from before the last ultimatum, btw.

Kremlin Responds To Trump’s Ukraine Deadline Change (RT)

Russia has taken note of US President Donald Trump’s decision to shorten the deadline for a peace deal in Ukraine and to issue new threats, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. On Monday, Trump cut his previous 50-day deadline for a Ukraine peace deal to just 10-12 days, warning that Moscow could face sweeping sanctions if no agreement is reached. He has threatened 100% tariffs on Russia’s trading partners and said he no longer wishes to speak with President Vladimir Putin “just to talk.” “We have taken into account President Trump’s statement yesterday,” Peskov told reporters on Tuesday, while refraining from making any “judgments” about the remarks.

Peskov noted that while Russia’s military operation will continue, Moscow remains “committed to the peace process to resolve the conflict around Ukraine and to ensure our interests in the course of this settlement.” Regarding the possibility of a meeting between Trump and Putin, which has been widely anticipated in the media in recent months, Peskov reiterated that the issue has not been raised in practical terms and is still not on the agenda. He went on to say that Russia remains interested in rebuilding ties with the US, a process initiated after the two countries’ meeting in February, while acknowledging that progress has been slow.

“So far, the normalization process is proceeding sluggishly. We would like to see more momentum,” he said, adding that in order to “move forward, impulses are needed from both sides.” Since entering office this year, Trump has said he respects both Russia and Putin and wants to find a quick diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis. In recent weeks, however, he has increasingly expressed disappointment over the lack of progress in the peace process and has resorted to sanctions threats against Moscow. Russian officials have rejected ultimatums from Washington, warning that these threats only serve to prolong the war.

Read more …

“..negotiations would only end “when all the objectives of our military operation have been achieved.” “Work on America first, gramps!”

‘It’s Not For You Or Trump To Dictate’ – Medvedev To Lindsey Graham (RT)

It is not up to Washington to dictate when Moscow should negotiate a peace deal with Kiev, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has told US Senator Lindsey Graham, urging him to focus on domestic issues instead. Medvedev’s comments follow US President Donald Trump’s decision on Monday to shorten his 50-day deadline for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine to just 10-12 days. Trump has threatened to impose additional sanctions on Moscow and 100% tariffs on its trading partners if no deal is reached. Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, had cautioned Trump against issuing ultimatums. “Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran,” he wrote on X, warning that each threat marks “a step towards war” between the US and Russia.

Graham, a senior Republican and longtime war hawk, responded by claiming that Russia and its “customers” would “soon be sadly mistaken” and ordered Moscow to “get to the peace table.” Medvedev hit back on Tuesday, stating, “It’s not for you or Trump to dictate when to ‘get at the peace table.’” He added that negotiations would only end “when all the objectives of our military operation have been achieved.” “Work on America first, gramps!” Medvedev wrote. Graham, officially labeled a terrorist and extremist by the Russian government, receives major donations from US defense contractors and consistently supports US military action abroad, describing the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war between Washington and Moscow.

He has backed continued military aid to Kiev and unsuccessfully tried to push through a bill that would impose 500% tariffs on countries trading with Russia. While Trump had initially vowed to resolve the Ukraine conflict, in recent months he has grown frustrated with the lack of progress and resorted to threats of sanctions in an effort to push Moscow and Kiev toward the negotiating table. Russian officials have welcomed Trump’s peace efforts in principle but strongly opposed what they call the “language of ultimatums,” insisting any settlement must reflect battlefield realities and address the roots of the conflict.

Read more …

” So, a new president of your country was elected at an Alpine resort. Is this how you envisioned the triumph of Ukrainian ‘democracy, independence, and self-sufficiency’ that you have long dreamed of?”

US, UK Hold Talks on Replacing Zelensky – Russian Foreign Intel (Sp.)

The Americans and British announced their decision to nominate Zaluzhny for the post of Ukrainian president, with Yermak and Budanov* “saluting the decision.” Representatives from the US and UK, with the participation of Ukrainian Presidential Office Head Andriy Yermak, Ukrainian Military Intelligence Directorate Head Kyrylo Budanov, and Ukraine’s Ambassador to London Valery Zaluzhny, discussed the prospects of replacing Volodymyr Zelensky, according to the press service of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). “According to information received by the SVR, not long ago, representatives from the US and the UK organized a secret meeting in a resort area in the Alps, with the participation of Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office A. Yermak, Head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense’s Intelligence Directorate K. Budanov, and former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Ukraine’s Ambassador to London V. Zaluzhny,” the statement said.

“The prospects of replacing V. Zelensky as the head of the Kiev regime were discussed,” the press service added. “The prospects of replacing Zelensky as the head of the Kiev regime were discussed. Zelensky’s replacement has, in essence, become a key condition for the ‘reset’ of relations between Kiev and Western partners, primarily Washington, and for the continuation of Western assistance to Ukraine in its confrontation with Russia,” the statement said.
Yermak and Budanov secured promises from the “Anglo-Saxon” countries to maintain their current positions after Zelensky’s replacement, the statement reads. Washington and London want to nominate Zaluzhny for the position of Ukrainian president. “The Americans and Brits have announced their decision to nominate Zaluzhny for the post of president of Ukraine. Yermak and Budanov ‘saluted the decision.’

They also secured promises from the Anglo-Saxons to maintain their current positions and to take their interests into account when making other personnel decisions,” the SVR statement said. The agreement reached in the Alps regarding the replacement of Volodymyr Zelensky sheds light on the underlying reasons for his recent attempt to limit the powers of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies, according to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. “The agreement reached in the Alps sheds light on the background of the recent scandalous attempt by the ‘president’ to limit the powers of local anti-corruption bodies. By clearing the political ‘field’ for Zaluzhny, Yermak ‘set up’ Zelensky – convincing him that such a move would not damage relations with Western partners, while in fact creating an opportunity for the West to begin a campaign to remove the ‘outdated’ leader from power as someone who ‘threatens democracy,'” the SVR noted.

On July 22, the Ukrainian parliament supported a bill that cancels the independence of two anti-corruption agencies: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). The bill was later signed by Zelensky. Several Ukrainian lawmakers viewed the bill as a move to dismantle the country’s anti-corruption structures. According to Ukrainian media reports, protests against the law, which stripped NABU and SAPO of their independence, took place across the country starting July 22.

On July 24, against the backdrop of mass protests across Ukraine, Zelensky claimed he had agreed on a draft law that would supposedly strengthen the independence of these agencies. According to documents on the Rada’s website, the bill was submitted on July 24. Previously, Ukrainian Parliament Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk stated that the Rada would consider the bill on July 31, adding that he would propose adopting it in both the first and second readings and immediately sending it to Zelensky for signature. “The meeting that took place and its results give reason to address the citizens of Ukraine. So, a new president of your country was elected at an Alpine resort. Is this how you envisioned the triumph of Ukrainian ‘democracy, independence, and self-sufficiency’ that you have long dreamed of?” the SVR concludes.

Read more …

Zelensky is no longer Churchill.

EU Threatens Ukraine Aid Freeze – Media (RT)

Kiev is facing deeper cuts in EU financial support than it has publicly acknowledged, Ukrainian and German media have reported. Brussels reportedly views Ukraine’s crackdown on anti-corruption institutions as an attempt to shield an ally of Vladimir Zelensky. Last Friday, the European Commission said it would reduce support under the Ukraine Facility program from a €4.5 billion ($5.2 billion) installment to €3.05 billion ($3.5 billion), citing Kiev’s failure to meet commitments on anti-corruption reforms. However, Ukrainskaya Pravda has reported that the program has been de facto frozen, alongside another mechanism, ERA Loans, with a total of $60 billion at stake. On Monday, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported on an EU letter to the Ukrainian government which threatened the suspension of aid.

The Ukrainian government has placed two departments established with Western support to address rampant graft in Ukraine – the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) – under the authority of the country’s prosecutor general. However, following widespread Western rebukes, Zelensky promised to reverse the decision. Several of Zelensky’s close political supporters, particularly in the Defense Ministry, are in danger of becoming caught in the organization’s crosshairs. He claimed the move was an effort to eliminate “Russian influence” in the agencies, but EU experts reportedly found the explanation unconvincing.

According to an internal analysis cited by FAZ and shared with EU embassies in Kiev, the changes were described as “the largest interference in the affairs of the Ukrainian anti-corruption system since its inception.” The analysis also indicated that the action was likely prompted by NABU’s investigation into former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov, a close political ally and personal friend of Zelensky. Ukraine’s security service (SBU) allegedly seized case files from NABU investigators, including the lead officer handling the probe, raising concerns about the admissibility of evidence and the integrity of the case. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed that Ukrainian bodies were designed not to combat corruption but to give Western governments leverage over Kiev.

Read more …

Nothing in Europe is ready. The people least of all.

EU Roads Not Ready For War – Transport Chief (RT)

The EU’s roads and railways are unprepared for war, the bloc’s transport chief has warned. In an interview with the Financial Times published on Tuesday, commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas said the transportation infrastructure, including bridges, railways, and tunnels, is incapable of moving tanks, troops, or military supplies in case of conflict. European officials have long warned of a possible conflict with Russia and pushed for militarization, despite Moscow denying it has any plans to attack. Tzitzikostas said defending the region would be impossible if armies cannot move quickly. He argued that if NATO tanks were needed to respond to an invasion, they would risk getting stuck in tunnels, collapsing bridges, and being delayed by border protocols.

“The reality today is that if we want to move military equipment and troops from the western side of Europe to the eastern side, it takes weeks and in some cases months,” he said. “We have old bridges that need to be upgraded, we have narrow bridges that need to be widened and we have nonexistent bridges to be built.” He explained that much of Europe’s infrastructure is not designed for heavy military transport. Trucks generally weigh up to 40 tons, while a tank can weigh up to 70. According to Tzitzikostas, Brussels is preparing a strategy to ensure troops can move swiftly. The plan includes upgrading 500 infrastructure projects along four military corridors and cutting bureaucratic red tape to ease border crossing.

The projects, identified with NATO, are classified, but are estimated to cost €17 billion ($19.7 billion). The strategy will be presented later this year. The initiative comes amid a push for greater militarization across the bloc over what officials describe as the ‘Russian threat’. Recent moves include the €800 billion ReArm Europe program and a pledge by European NATO members to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP. Moscow has dismissed the claims as “nonsense.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said last month that the West uses Russia as a “monster” to justify growing military budgets. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western leaders of pushing Europe toward direct confrontation.

Read more …

“We have a critical shortage of personnel. No one wants to fight. The war is over (for them)..”

“The old personnel are left, they are tired and want to be replaced, but no one is replacing them.”

Ukrainian Troops Face ‘Critical’ Attrition – CNN (RT)

Ukraine’s forces are exhausted and suffering from a “critical shortage of personnel,” with no recruits to replace them, CNN reported on Tuesday. With few volunteers, Kiev’s draft campaign has reportedly become more brutal and has drawn criticism for violence and abuse. Ukrainian troops deployed to Konstantinovka – a major logistics hub in Donetsk Region – have not seen reinforcements for eight months, the outlet wrote, citing a member of Ukraine’s 93rd Mechanized Brigade. The city is currently facing encirclement by Russia. “We have a critical shortage of personnel. No one wants to fight. The war is over (for them),” CNN cited the serviceman as saying. “The old personnel are left, they are tired and want to be replaced, but no one is replacing them.”

According to the soldier, Ukraine’s army doesn’t relay many of these frontline difficulties to the state, and Kiev “doesn’t communicate a lot of things to the people.” When we say that the situation is difficult, no one understands. You have to be in our shoes. We are tired. Everyone is tired of this war, and I believe that other countries are also tired of helping us. The remaining Ukrainian infantry hold positions around the city with as few as two people, CNN wrote. They are resupplied in the dark hours of dawn or dusk via the larger of Ukraine’s quadcopter models, as frontline positions are vulnerable to Russian UAVs.

Russia’s newer drone forces from the Rubicon unit are “well-trained and professional,” sometimes needing nothing but a thread hanging from a quadcopter to entangle the rotors of a Ukrainian drone to crash it, CNN cited their source as saying. Ukrainian troops in Konstantinovka are increasingly turning to fishing nets as anti-drone defenses to fight against the high-tech aerial threat, but some Russian drone operators exploit gaps to bypass them, according to CNN. Russian forces have gained control of key lines of communication on the city’s flanks, moving to encircle it. The Russian Defense Ministry reported on Tuesday that its southern army group has “improved its positions” around the key logistics hub.

Read more …

“Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the program “a one-way ticket,” suggesting that Ukraine is “annihilating” its youth..”

Ukrainian Army To Recruit Pensioners (RT)

Ukraine will start enlisting men over 60 for contract-based military service, according to a new law signed by Vladimir Zelensky on Tuesday. The measure appears aimed at addressing recruitment shortfalls in the country’s armed forces. The new law enables pension-eligible men to enlist for non-combat roles if they are deemed fit by military doctors and approved by a unit commander. Contracts will last for one year and may be renewed upon further approval. Originally introduced in April by a group of lawmakers, the bill passed its second reading in the Verkhovna Rada earlier this month. Under current Ukrainian law, 60 is the minimum retirement age for men.

The country announced a general mobilization in February 2022 under which most men between the age of 18 and 60 were barred from leaving the country. In 2024, faced with mounting losses, Kiev lowered the conscription age from 27 to 25 and tightened mobilization rules. The draft campaign has increasingly relied on coercion, sparking numerous violent confrontations between conscription officers and civilians. Reports of beatings, street detentions, and extortion have circulated widely, though Kiev has routinely dismissed such allegations as “Russian propaganda.” In a recent interview with Hungarian media, Zelensky admitted that mobilization remains a major challenge.

More than 213,000 registered cases of desertion have now been reported in Ukraine, with widespread corruption and extortion of combat pay by military commanders listed among the reasons Ukrainian soldiers abandon their units. Earlier this year, Kiev launched a voluntary military recruitment campaign targeting men aged 18 to 24. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the program “a one-way ticket,” suggesting that Ukraine is “annihilating” its youth. Russian officials have long said that Kiev’s Western backers are ready to fight Moscow “until the last Ukrainian.”

Read more …

“You go back—we only have a few weeks left, I’m a lame-duck president—and bring me the right assessments.” And that’s exactly what they did..”

New Details Emerge on Obama’s Role in Russiagate Scandal (Victor Davis Hanson)

I’d like to talk about the ongoing melodrama of what former President Barack Obama knew or did not know in his involvement with Russian collusion, the hoax that plagued the Donald Trump 2016 campaign, tried to undermine his transition in 2016 and 2017, and ate up the first 22 months of his presidency in 2017 and 2018, and was found to be completely bogus. There are three blind mice involved in this tale: John Brennan, the former CIA director; James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence; and James Comey, the former FBI director. And they all have new manifestations of their untruthfulness.

Let’s start with John Brennan. He’s very angry right now because the trove that was released by National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard of new documents and investigations may or may not have criminal referrals come out of them, and Attorney General Pam Bondi may file new charges. The problem that Brennan has is that he went to a meeting and he presented a false picture of CIA assessments. The so-called CIA heads of various divisions found no Russian collusion. They said to John Brennan, “There’s nothing there that we can see that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians.” He rejected that, cherry-picked four or five other analysts, and then presented a false picture to Barack Obama. Or did he? Or did Barack Obama request that he do that? It’ll be “he said, he said,” but it’s more likely that Barack Obama asked John Brennan to come up with the correct CIA assessments.

Sort of like Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the Soviet secret police during the Cold War and at the end of World War II. He said, “I have the criminal. You find me the crime.” So: “I have the criminal, Donald Trump. All I need is Russian collusion.” And that was the methodology that they proceeded by. The problem with Brennan, though, is, in the process of preparing this false assessment, he said again and again, both publicly but also under testimony, he didn’t know anything about the Steele dossier. Didn’t know anything about it. He didn’t read it. It didn’t compute into CIA assessment. That was a lie. We know now from other testimonies, especially from the trove, that he did draw on the fake Steele dossier. He referenced it to other people. And the problem with John Brennan is this isn’t the first time he’s misled us. He lied about the Senate staffer computers. That was under oath. He lied, remember, about Predator drones, when he said there was no collateral damage. And remember he lied also as one of the 51 intelligence authorities who tried to float that bogus idea that Hunter Biden’s laptop was cooked up in Russia.

Then we come to James Clapper. He was sitting at this meeting in December of 2016, where he gave a false assessment and he misrepresented what the 18 intelligence agencies under his direction had found. They had not found Russian collusion, and yet he participated in this. He went so far as later to thanking and giving credit to Barack Obama for demanding that they find Russian collusion. He said, “If he hadn’t have ordered us to do this, we wouldn’t have found it.” I.e., the subtext is, “There was no evidence in our intelligence agency for it, so we concocted it on the directive of Barack Obama.” But remember, he lied too. He swore under oath to the U.S. Congress that the National Security Agency had never spied on Americans. That was an abject lie. And he was part of the 51 intelligent authorities who also lied to the American people in 2020 on the eve of the second debate when Joe Biden denied that Hunter lied, Hunter Biden’s laptop was authentic. He quoted the 51 authorities. The FBI, remember, at that time, had it in its possession and had already authenticated it as genuine.

Then we come to James Comey. He also says that he had really nothing to do with the Steele dossier. The fact is, he was completely acquainted with it. He offered, his FBI offered a million dollars. They were so desperate to validate it. They said to Christopher Steele, “Just give us some proof. We can use this. We’ll give you a million dollars.” He couldn’t even come up with the substantive arguments to corroborate his own dossier, so he didn’t get the million dollars. More importantly, James Comey has a problem. He leaked, on an FBI device, a conversation he had memorialized to The New York Times via a third party. James Comey, remember, went before the House Oversight Committee, as I said earlier, and lied 245 times. If you say, “I don’t remember, I don’t recall, I don’t know,”—can you imagine an FBI director with all that knowledge at his fingertips saying, “I don’t remember, I don’t know,” about the most important investigation in recent history?

Let’s sum up these three blind mice. There’s new evidence that Barack Obama asked intelligence, investigatory heads—like John Brennan, like James Clapper and James Comey—to “find me evidence that you haven’t found yet so that we can continue the Russian collusion hoax after it was ineffective in the campaign, Hillary Clinton lost the election. Now we want to sabotage.” This is the subtext of the transition and his presidency. “You go back—we only have a few weeks left, I’m a lame-duck president—and bring me the right assessments.” And that’s exactly what they did, and that’s why they’re terrified that new information is coming forth that suggests to the American people what they did and how they were culpable.

Read more …

“The EU spent €76 billion on US energy last year – tripling that would require sidelining cheaper suppliers and diverting nearly all US oil and gas exports to Europe. “It’s just never going to happen.”

EU’s $750bn Energy Pledge To US Is ‘Fantasy’ – Politico (RT)

The EU’s pledge to buy $750 billion worth of American energy over three years to avert a trade war with Washington is “almost impossible” to honor, Politico reported Tuesday, citing analysts and officials. The EU and the US finalized a wide-ranging trade pact on Sunday, narrowly avoiding a transatlantic trade war. Under the agreement, most EU exports to the US will face a baseline tariff of 15%. Brussels also pledged to buy $750 billion in US energy and invest $600 billion into the US economy over three years. According to the outlet, limited US supply, technical obstacles, and the EU’s lack of control over import deals make hitting the targets extremely difficult.

The headline figure is “completely unrealistic,” Laura Page, senior analyst at commodities firm Kpler told the outlet. The EU spent €76 billion on US energy last year – tripling that would require sidelining cheaper suppliers and diverting nearly all US oil and gas exports to Europe. “It’s just never going to happen.” Despite European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s claim that the plan would boost energy security and reduce reliance on Russia, the numbers remain unconvincing, the outlet noted. While pipeline flows plunged after sanctions and the Nord Stream sabotage, Russian LNG surged, making up 17.5% of EU supply last year, second only to the US at 45.3%.

In 2024, the EU imported €23 billion in oil, gas, and nuclear fuel from Russia—too little to close the gap. EU refineries also have limited capacity to process American oil, capped around 14%, said Kpler’s Homayoun Falakshahi. “It really is a fantasy,” he said. A senior Commission official told the outlet the deal depends on having sufficient LNG infrastructure and US shipping capacity, which is not in place. The Commission also can’t make purchases itself – it relies on private companies. “This is not something the EU can guarantee,” one official said.

Read more …

“I don’t know why bad things happen to good people,” Kennedy said. “If I make it to heaven, I’m gonna ask.”

Sen. Kennedy Says ‘We Need More Idiot Control’ After NYC Shooting (Margolis)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) once again demonstrated why he’s among the most blunt voices on Capitol Hill as he threw cold water on the left’s knee-jerk fixation with gun control in the aftermath of Monday’s deadly Midtown Manhattan shooting that left five people dead, including an NYPD officer. Kennedy, appearing with Sean Hannity, directly called out what’s become a predictable routine from progressives: a fresh crime, and immediately, another chorus calling to shred the Second Amendment. Kennedy, who has long opposed additional gun control legislation, made it clear he expects Democrats to push for more restrictions in response to the attack. “On Capitol Hill, probably beginning in the morning, there’ll be the inevitable call by some of my colleagues for more gun control laws,” Kennedy predicted.

But, as he put it bluntly, “We’ve got hundreds of gun control laws, Sean, maybe thousands… We don’t need more gun control. We need more idiot control.” Kennedy was unwavering in his characterization of the shooter and the crime. “I believe there’s objective evil in this world,” he said. “And we saw it today.” He dismissed any anticipated sympathy for the shooter, saying, “I don’t want to hear anyone feeling sorry for this guy. ‘He was confused.’ ‘He was just sick.’ ‘His mom or daddy didn’t love him enough.’ All that may be true, but from the bottom of my heart, I don’t care.” The Louisiana senator also criticized the broader climate of hostility toward law enforcement in major cities like New York. “There are a lot of people in political leadership today who believe that cops are a bigger problem than criminals,” he said. “If a cop has to shoot a criminal, it’s always the cop’s fault. But if a criminal shoots a cop, it’s the gun’s fault.”

As New York City remains embroiled in debates over policing policies ranging from defunding the police to replacing officers with social workers, Kennedy warned against policies that undermine public safety. “Police aren’t perfect,” he said, “but they’re the only distance between us and whack jobs like this guy who killed these innocent people today.” He went further, calling for a return to more assertive policing measures. “New York’s gonna have to face the issue of whether we should bring back more aggressive stop and frisk,” Kennedy said, referring to the tactic ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court but later abandoned under former Mayor Bill de Blasio. “The crime went up as soon as he did.” Although there is little public information about the shooter at this stage, early reports indicate that the attack was not random. “It seems to be targeted,” Hannity noted. “He seemed to know exactly where he wanted to go.”

Kennedy’s remarks offered a stark reminder that evil is not just theoretical—it has consequences, and those consequences are now being felt by the families of the victims. “I don’t know why bad things happen to good people,” Kennedy said. “If I make it to heaven, I’m gonna ask.” Kennedy is absolutely right. The radical left seizes on every tragedy as an excuse to chip away at the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. They push the same tired agenda, demanding more gun control that punishes the innocent while doing nothing to stop the evil at the heart of the violence. This horrific act took place despite New York having among the strictest gun laws in the nation — proof, yet again, that oppressive laws fail to deliver their advertised safety. Not a single law they’ve passed or proposed would have prevented the carnage we saw yesterday.

Read more …

Should that be 1st gen? And can this bring Musk and Trump closer?

Tesla Picks Taylor, Texas for Next Gen ‘Made in the USA AI Chips’ (PJM)

Tesla has signed a $16.5 billion deal with Samsung Electronics to manufacture its new AI6 chips, the brains behind its next-generation autonomous vehicles, not in Taiwan or South Korea, but in Taylor, Texas. This news is fantastic on several levels. It’s more than simply a business deal; it’s a declaration that America is no longer outsourcing its tech future. As Elon Musk bluntly X’d:

For years following World War II, the world lived under the silent bottleneck pressure of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. The chips used in defense systems, neural networks, and autonomous vehicles are advanced AI using materials found within a rock’s throw of Beijing. Suddenly, a significant business decision has a profound impact on our national security. At long last, this AI chip deal shifted the fulcrum. Samsung’s Taylor facility becomes a beachhead in the global chip war due to its $40 billion investment. These investments aren’t just about cars anymore; they’re about securing AI, data infrastructure, and laying the economic foundation of this century. What Taiwan is to the global chip supply, Texas has become a shining example of American self-reliance—a modern Silicon Alamo. This time, though, we’re not playing defense.

Tesla’s AI6 chips are vital for achieving Full Self-Driving ambitions. They’re not just processors; they’re the cornerstone for real-time decision-making, leveraging visual processing and paving the way for future autonomy. With production anchored in Texas, Tesla does more than improve logistics; it creates a closed-loop ecosystem with design, fabrication, testing, and deployment all on U.S. soil. When Apple launched its M-series chips, they sought the same control. The difference? Apple makes devices, while Tesla builds a nervous system for AI-driven mobility, robotics, and energy systems. Texas is on a roll! Its population isn’t the only thing growing; the state is expanding its relevance. This Samsung-Tesla deal creates thousands of high-tech jobs, helping to fabricate and reinforce a talent pipeline that elevates the Lone Star State into a global hub for next-gen chip production.

We’re witnessing an industrial revolution covered with Texas barbecue and no state income tax. The deal again demonstrates how America is competing. No subsidies are lining the pockets of backroom board members who work to stifle innovation by engineering regulations. This was done the Smith-Barney way: They earned it by creating private-public partnerships, drawing investment, brains, and resolve. We need to give credit where it’s due: this deal wouldn’t have happened without the Trump administration’s aggressive CHIPS and Science Act reforms, which helped reshore critical manufacturing. Trump’s policies focus on the long game, emphasizing semiconductors, steel, and sovereignty. In contrast, the Biden administration didn’t simply slow-walk similar projects; instead, they scoffed while investing in green vanity projects. Thank God the grown-ups are back. There’s no denying the results we see nearly every week.

We can’t forget about China. They’re not sitting still; the CCP is racing to dominate chip fabrication by pouring billions into domestic fabs and luring Taiwan and South Korea with million-dollar paychecks. The West is relearning what Beijing has known for decades: Whoever controls the chips controls the future. The Samsung-Tesla alliance is making a loud and clear statement that the United States will no longer depend on hostile or unstable regions for the future’s machinery. The coalition serves as a counterpunch to the Belt and Road Initiative, TikTok’s spyware tentacles, and especially to the notion of America’s inevitable decline. If that message wasn’t enough, we’re sending one to NATO and its allies: America isn’t back in the game; it is THE GAME — not just militarily, but industrially, telling allies that if they want to remain competitive, they bloody well better follow our lead.

Samsung is taking a high-stakes gamble for its foundry. The Korean tech giant played second fiddle to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) for years. It struggled with yields and volume in 3nm and 4nm nodes. With Musk’s vote of confidence and Tesla’s elite engineering standards, Samsung might finally have its breakout moment. Unlike a company still chasing relevance in AI chip production (Intel), Samsung has secured a front-row seat on the ship to our future. If it delivers, the ripple effects will stretch worldwide. Samsung’s partnership with Tesla is less about profit and more about positioning. For America, it’s a strong wedge between China and one of its most advanced neighbors. But for Musk, it’s a day ending in “Y.”

America doesn’t need to simply dominate every industry overnight. The long game helps us outlast, outthink, and out-invest every regime wanting to replace us. The best part? That starts by building, hiring, and anchoring our future right here. We can tell the World Economic Forum to pound sand, while expressing the iron resolve of American workers and American soil. Tesla’s deal with Samsung isn’t just a tech story; it’s a quiet return to national purpose. Wait one! Do you hear that? That noise sounds a lot like WINNING!

Read more …

“..@TheJusticeDept filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,”

DOJ Files Complaint Over Judge’s Out-of-Court Statements (Rowland)

The Justice Department filed a complaint alleging misconduct by a federal judge overseeing several cases involving the Trump administration regarding out-of-court statements the judge made about President Donald Trump. The complaint, filed by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, alleges Judge James Boasberg made improper public comments at a conference in March. Mizelle alleges Boasberg tried to influence Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges at the conference with comments that Trump would disregard court orders leading to a “a constitutional crisis.” “Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,” Mizelle wrote in the complaint. “Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders.”

“At my direction, @TheJusticeDept filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,” Bondi wrote in a social media post. “These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that.” Mizelle asked Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan to direct the complaint to a special investigative committee, reassignment of all related Trump cases to another judge, and to “impose appropriate disciplinary action.”

Boasberg was the judge in the Alien Enemies Act case, which was filed in mid-March when multiple deportation flights took off from the United States to El Salvador. During an emergency hearing, Boasberg ordered that any planes that were midair and bound for El Salvador return to the United States. Boasberg later initiated contempt proceedings to determine if the Trump administration willfully violated court orders. An appeals court paused the process, however. The Supreme Court ruled in April that a lower federal court doesn’t have jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed to prevent deportations of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua prison gang members illegally in the U.S. The White House has called for Boasberg to be impeached in March.

Read more …

France will recognize Palestine shortly. So will Britain. Holland refuses entry to Ben Gvir and Smotrich. Starvation is all over everyone’s tv screens.

Israel Might Annex Gaza… All Because of France? (PJM)

When Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005 — and some settlers had to be removed at gunpoint — it probably seemed unthinkable that Israel would ever again lay claim to the Strip. Various reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is indeed thinking the unthinkable, and French President Emmanuel Macron is likely the accidental instigator. “Netanyahu is considering a plan to annex territories in Gaza if Hamas doesn’t agree to a ceasefire plan. This is one of several options,” an unnamed Israeli source told ABC News. The Israeli government has repeatedly told Hamas that the war can end immediately — all it has to do is release the remaining hostages. Or, probably more accurately, return their remains. Hamas refuses to do so, even though Israel has made clear that its war aim is the elimination of Hamas as both a military and political force.

Why would Hamas take such a suicidal risk? You can thank Western politicians like Macron for providing Hamas with the political cover the terrorist organization believes will allow it to survive any IDF onslaught. Just last Friday, Macron announced that his country will recognize a Palestinian state starting in September. Western recognition of the Palestinians — an imaginary people that the Soviets and Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat conjured up in the 1960s — would create a legal nest of vipers for Jerusalem. I’ll let the international law experts go into those details, but my GPT research served up a big, steaming bowl of “Not Good.” For America’s part, President Donald Trump brushed off Macron: “That statement doesn’t carry any weight.” Nor should it, for anyone interested in peace and in eliminating one of the world’s worst terrorist outfits — two inextricably intertwined and mutually reinforcing goals.

That recognition effort may have triggered far more than diplomatic friction. It could set the stage for a major and permanent shift in Israeli policy. Israel’s N12 news service analyst Amit Segal called the potential annexations “significant” because once Israel annexes territory, giving it back is nearly impossible.”While the military can simply relinquish any territory it controls, annexing parts of the strip is almost irreversible,” Segal explained this morning on X. “According to Israeli law, if the government wants to relinquish territory it has annexed, it has two options: the withdrawal can either be approved by 80 of the Knesset’s 120 members, or through a referendum.” As divisive as Israeli politics are, getting 80 votes on anything as contentious as giving up land seems highly unlikely. As horrible as Oct. 7 was, getting Israeli voters to approve of giving land back to Hamas seems even less likely.

Here’s the kicker: Annexation is hard to undo, but actually annexing new real estate requires nothing more than Netanyahu’s approval. What one man can do requires 80 to undo. Earlier this month, France’s National Court of Asylum “ruled that Palestinian nationals from Gaza who are not under the United Nations protection may be granted refugee status under the 1951 Geneva Convention.” That would presumably include any Gaza Arabs in lands occupied — or annexed — by Israel. If I were Netanyahu, I’d be thinking very hard about two things right now. The first, of course, is which parts of the Strip are essential to Israeli security and ripe for annexation. The second is how to play hardball with Macron. Maybe — just maybe! — Israel won’t flood France with Gazans they’re legally obligated to take in as refugees, so long as Macron backs away from recognition. Two can play this game. And should.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1950224020206465221?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1950224020206465221%7Ctwgr%5E403b0421a1ce3aafa21ef1b0c98241332b6404f5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fstarmer-warns-uk-could-join-france-recognizing-palestinian-state

Read more …

“Giuffre, who committed suicide in April..”

After saying she never would.

Trump Says He Believes Epstein ‘Stole’ Virginia Giuffre From Mar-a-Lago (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Tuesday told reporters that he believes Jeffrey Epstein’s most prominent accuser, Virginia Giuffre, was among the former Mar-a-Lago employees that the late financier “stole” from his resort. Giuffre, who committed suicide in April, has been credited by other Epstein accusers with inspiring them to speak out about their own experiences with the convicted felon. Epstein died in prison in 2019, while awaiting trial on multiple sex-trafficking charges. Trump spoke out about his fallout with the late financier over the weekend as his administration faces blowback from lawmakers and supporters regarding its handling of Epstein’s alleged client list.

The president claimed the falling out was over Epstein stealing employees from his Florida resort. “He took people that worked for me. And I told him, ‘Don’t do it anymore.’ And he did it,” Trump said. “I said, ‘Stay the hell out of here.'” Trump confirmed that the employees were young women who worked in the club’s spa, including Giuffre. The accuser previously said she met Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell while working at the resort as a teenager, per NBC News.

“I told him, I said, ‘Listen, we don’t want you taking our people, whether it was spa or not spa.’ … And he was fine. And then not too long after that, he did it again,” Trump said. “I think [Giuffre] worked at the spa. I think so. I think that was one of the people. He stole her, and by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know, none whatsoever.” The president’s comments are true that Giuffre has never accused Trump of wrongdoing, but she has sued Prince Andrew, alleging she was sexually abused by him when she was a teenager. The British prince has denied the allegations but settled the lawsuit in 2022.

Read more …

Ran this yesterday as a video with no context. Sundance’s enthousiasm for it makes me run it again.

Must Watch – Tucker Carlson Interviews Richard Werner (CTH)

This is one of those interviews that simply must be watched in its entirety. It’s long, almost 3 hours, but take the quiet time to watch and absorb the information provided by economist Professor Richard Werner. Werner discusses something absolutely vital to understand about the nature of economics and the banking system that underpins it. You have often heard me say “there are trillions at stake” when describing the elements aligned against President Trump. Well, Werner gives context to what lies behind those trillions. Nine years ago, as President Elect Trump won his first election, I wrote about the future of economics and the potential if a Main Street monetary and banking system was created. Richard Werner discusses the specific issue of how credit creation by regular banks actually creates money. He’s the first person I have seen speak who really gets it.

There are distinct differences between banks creating money for asset purchases (inflation), consumer purchases (inflation) and GDP growth (Main Street expansion). He simply nails it, and that is why he was put on the CIA radar. When Werner speaks of the need for two distinct banking systems as a solution to the “inflationary” impact of money created for asset purchases vs GDP growth, he is specifically highlighting the difference between Wall Street money and Main Street money. This, in the largest measure, is exactly why President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin created the dual banking system. This is what led to the global pandemic as a tool to stop President Trump.

I cannot recommend this interview enough. However, don’t sell yourself short. Find a quiet place, quiet time, and take notes as you listen to Richard Werner outline the true and unspoken nature of how money is created. When you understand what Werner is saying, everything the FED and Central Banks do starts to make sense. Behind what Werner is explaining you will find the motives to oppose President Trump. Werner doesn’t draw the connection to Trump’s policies, but when you hear him outline the history and the problem you will get it.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Makis

Fertility
https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1949721049286738278

cell

pole
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1950065059020845390
malaka
https://twitter.com/FreshSummerWind/status/1950135110180667890

bull

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

May 072025
 


Felix Vallotton Verdun 1917

 

Bessent Says US Is Negotiating With 17 Out of 18 Major Trade Partners (JTN)
Bessent and USTR Greer Will Meet Chinese Trade Counterparts in Switzerland (CTH)
Chinese Exporters Dodging US Tariffs – FT (RT)
China May Cave to Trump on Tariffs Soon (Matt Margolis)
The EU Zombie Uses Trump as Cover to Further Feed on Citizens (NC)
The Death of Old Europe (von Hoffmeister)
Canada’s War on… Canada (Solway)
Canada: A Post-Election Autopsy (Solway)
The Trump-Iran Deal, Explained (Victor Davis Hanson)
$373M in DEI Funding at US Universities in Four Years (Salgado)
OpenAI Blinks: Scraps For-Profit Plan After Outside Pressure (ZH)
(None Dare Call It) Treason of the Judiciary (Miele)
SCOTUS Rules On Trump’s Ban On Transgenders In The Military (Downey Jr)
President Trump Sends Message of Support for Ed Martin as DC Attorney (CTH)
This One Judge Keeps Getting Trump Cases, and It’s No Accident (Matt Margolis)
America First Legal sues Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (JTN)
The Treaty That Kept India And Pakistan In Check Is Gone. Now What? (Chopra)

 

 

 

 

Big as it gets

Carney

Ritter
https://twitter.com/SMO_VZ/status/1919507173295718879

Orban
https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1919730442808307869

Levine

Sharia

Fico
https://twitter.com/GlobalDiss/status/1919724917135646990

Catherine Austin Fitts talked about it

 

 

 

 

“I would be surprised if we don’t have more than 80% or 90% of those wrapped up by the end of the year,” he continued. “That may be much sooner. I would think that perhaps as early as this week, we will be announcing trade deals with some of our largest trading partners.”

Bessent Says US Is Negotiating With 17 Out of 18 Major Trade Partners (JTN)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday testified to Congress that the United States is in the process of negotiating with 17 of its largest trading partners. The secretary told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government that they have received good offers from the countries they are currently negotiating with, in the wake of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Bessent did not give a specific timeline for when trade deals would be reached, but said he expects most deals will be reached by the end of the year, according to Fox Business.

“There are 18 very important trading relationships. We are currently negotiating with 17 of those trading partners,” Bessent said. “China – we have not engaged in negotiations with as of yet. “Approximately 97% or 98% of our trade deficit is with 15 countries, 18% of the countries are major trading partners, and I would be surprised if we don’t have more than 80% or 90% of those wrapped up by the end of the year,” he continued. “That may be much sooner. I would think that perhaps as early as this week, we will be announcing trade deals with some of our largest trading partners.”

Bessent did not specify what countries they expect a deal with soon, or what the details of those deals would be. But he did state he believes the U.S. will see a reduction in the tariffs it’s charged by other countries. Hours after his testimony, officials indicated that formal trade negotiations with China could take place as early as Thursday, when the secretary travels to Switzerland. U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer is also expected to meet with Chinese trade officials in Switzerland. The testimony also coincided with Trump’s meeting with new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Canada and Mexico are two of the U.S.’s largest trading partners, along with China, Germany and Japan.

India
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1919798852426858673

Read more …

A chance meeting! It allows everyone to save face…

Bessent and USTR Greer Will Meet Chinese Trade Counterparts in Switzerland (CTH)

The media have been going bananas wondering when President Trump will begin negotiations with China. President Trump has been very clear that there is no need to open negotiations with China, but all discussions are welcome. Essentially the point is that tariffs will remain in place until Beijing gets to a point where they acquiesce to the reality of President Trump’s terms for reciprocal trade. The goal is to bring manufacturing back to the USA, not generate terms where manufacturing remains in China. The Chinese trade delegation is scheduled to be in Switzerland at the same time as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are scheduled to be there. Both Bessent and Greer announced today they will meet with their Chinese counterparts on the sidelines of their travel to Switzerland.

USTR Press Release – […] “At President Trump’s direction, I am negotiating with countries to rebalance our trade relations to achieve reciprocity, open new markets, and protect America’s economic and national security,” said Ambassador Greer. “I look forward to having productive meetings with some of my counterparts as well as visiting with my team in Geneva who all work diligently to advance U.S. interests on a range of multilateral issues. ”While in Switzerland, Ambassador Greer will also meet with his counterpart from the People’s Republic of China to discuss trade matters.”

Treasury Secretary Press Release – “During Secretary Bessent’s visit to Switzerland, he will meet with President Karin Keller-Sutter of Switzerland, during which the Secretary will follow up on their recent meeting on the sidelines of the recent World Bank Group (WBG) – International Monetary Fund (IMF) Spring Meetings. While in Switzerland, Secretary Bessent will also meet with the lead representative on economic matters from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). (link) As we previously noted, the Swiss are very interested in resolving their trade status quickly. The Swiss Franc is now at the highest point against the U.S dollar in decades. One franc is worth 1.21 dollars. This makes their exports cost even more. The Swiss government desperately needs to lower the value of their currency. The Swiss central bank has already dropped interest rates to 0.25% and is now contemplating negative interest rates as a result.

Read more …

Xi can’t deny knowing about it.

Chinese Exporters Dodging US Tariffs – FT (RT)

Chinese exporters are using various methods to avoid steep US tariffs, including shipping goods through third countries to obscure their origin, Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing trade consultants, customs officials, and social media posts. The practice, known as “place-of-origin washing,” involves rerouting goods through countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and South Korea, and re-exporting them to the United States with new certificates of origin. The administration of US President Donald Trump recently imposed steep tariffs of up to 145% on Chinese goods, citing national security and trade imbalance concerns.

Chinese exporters fear that the tariffs will deprive them of access to one of their most important markets. According to the outlet, Chinese social media platforms are awash with ads offering “place-of-origin washing.” “The US must know of it,” one Malaysian salesperson has told FT. “It cannot get too crazy so we are controlling the amount [of orders we take].” According to FT, authorities in Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand are looking into the alleged practice and are implementing measures to tighten origin checks. Chinese exporters typically sell goods “free on board” (FOB), transferring liability to buyers once the goods leave China, which complicates enforcement efforts, the outlet added.

The other reported circumvention method is mixing high-cost items with cheaper goods, so exporters can underreport overall values of shipments, the FT quoted a cross-border trade consultant as saying. There are intermediaries who reportedly offer “grey area” tariff workarounds to small- and medium-sized enterprises. Beijing has accused Washington of “economic bullying,” retaliating with 125% duties on all US imports and implementing export controls. The Chinese Commerce Ministry said last week that it was evaluating the possibility of trade negotiations with the US but reiterated that Washington must show “sincerity” by canceling its tariffs if it wants meaningful dialogue.

Read more …

“China’s social safety net is practically nonexistent. When Chinese workers lose their jobs, they’re completely on their own: no unemployment benefits, no food stamps, nothing. That’s why we’re seeing increasing unrest as workers demand back pay and protest unfair dismissals.”

China May Cave to Trump on Tariffs Soon (Matt Margolis)

President Donald Trump’s tough stance on China is already producing results, and the evidence suggests that Chairman Xi Jinping will have no choice but to back down. The Chinese economy, long propped up by unfair trade practices, is starting to crumble under the weight of Trump’s strategic 145% tariffs on Chinese imports. Protests from furious factory workers in China demanding back pay are spreading across the country after President Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports began impacting the communist nation’s economy. Unrest has been reported across the country as workers have taken to the streets protesting unpaid wages and challenging unfair dismissals following the closures of factories squeezed by US tariffs, according to Radio Free Asia.

Chinese industry leaders, meanwhile, are “extremely anxious” about the steep duties, with many telling factories and suppliers to halt or delay supplies, Wang Xin, head of an industry group representing more than 2,000 Chinese merchants told the Financial Times. The scale of the crisis is staggering. Goldman Sachs’ analysis indicates that 16 million Chinese jobs are at risk due to Trump’s tariffs. Chinese industry leaders are reportedly “extremely anxious” about the steep tariffs, which is likely an understatement given the mounting evidence of economic turmoil. “It’s not easy at the moment,” a 26-year-old toy factory worker told the FT. His employer, in the Chinese city of Zhejiang, mostly sells to the US, and management recently forced workers to take two weeks off unpaid in the face of the tariffs.

Last month, construction workers threatened to throw themselves off the buildings they were working on unless they received their unpaid wages in the northeastern city of Tongliao, Radio Free Asia reported. Elsewhere, a sporting goods factory in southern Hunan province also shut without warning last month, offering no compensation or social security benefits, leading hundreds of workers to go on strike, the outlet said. But here’s the key point that the mainstream media keeps missing: China’s social safety net is practically nonexistent. When Chinese workers lose their jobs, they’re completely on their own: no unemployment benefits, no food stamps, nothing. That’s why we’re seeing increasing unrest as workers demand back pay and protest unfair dismissals.

The Chinese Communist Party maintains its grip on power through economic growth and iron-fisted control. But when millions of workers take to the streets, even totalitarian regimes start to sweat. History shows that no government, not even one as powerful as China’s, can ignore the fury of its people indefinitely. Last month, Kevin O’Leary predicted that China’s economy would face serious pressure if the U.S. got tough on trade, which it has. He pointed out that millions of Chinese factory workers rely on American demand, and without access to it, China risks internal unrest or potentially economic collapse if the government prints money to keep people employed. This vindicates what Trump has been saying all along: China needs us far more than we need them. While some American companies are feeling the pinch from the tariffs, our diverse economy and robust worker protections provide a crucial buffer. China enjoys no such luxury. If Xi wants to stay in power, he’ll have to cave sooner rather than later.

Read more …

” It’s getting pushback from the European Parliament, but the fact is Ursula can do it anyways with minimal support from EU governments. She’s likely just waiting for the right moment.”

The EU Zombie Uses Trump as Cover to Further Feed on Citizens (NC)

Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving for the western misleadership class. Any anti-democratic swindle on the EU wish list is now being sold as a remedy to the Orange Man. (And if it’s not Trump, it’s Russia). The US is no longer a reliable defense partner, they say. We must give more power to Brussels and send untold billions to weapons companies. The US is no longer a reliable economic partner, they say. We must increase competitiveness by weakening labor and empowering finance. The UK voters may have opted for Brexit, but London and Brussels are “defying Trump” with a “free and open trade” declaration that includes negotiations ‘on defense and security, fishing and energy, as well as a “common understanding” of which topics will be covered by intensive Brexit reset negotiations this year.’

The strange thing about these plans, however, is that they include reliance on US weapons and energy and alignment with US geopolitical and geoeconomic goals. Let’s focus here on how the EU is pressing ahead with plans to dramatically increase defense spending due to Trump Abandonment Syndrome. The EU Jazz Band Recent commentary by Rosa Balfour, director of Carnegie Europe, perfectly sums up these arguments. In a piece titled “Europe Tried to Trump-Proof Itself. Now It’s Crafting a Plan B” she explains why the EU has no choice but to redirect social spending towards the arms industry. Balfour’s romantic version of recent history starts on February 28. That’s when “the televised humiliation of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky” took place, and “Europe realized it could no longer rely on its longtime ally, the United States.” And here she is on the jazzy wreckage:

“The shocking depth and breadth of this realization cannot be overemphasized. Political leaders in European states, the European Union, and NATO displayed composure and coordination, but behind the scenes, the soundtrack was a frantic free jazz jam session with dramatic thuds and a long pause—the silence at the realization that the European comfort zone was over. And now, what are these composed and coordinated “political leaders” doing? They announce that Ukraine is Europe’s first line of defense, make grand plans for a “coalition of the willing,” and declare that Ukraine will become a “steel porcupine”. The coalition of the willing has fallen apart. The steel porcupine was ridiculed. And while those in the Kremlin likely aren’t losing any sleep, Europeans should be. That’s because, as Balfour writes, the European Commission “can play supporting roles by mobilizing financial resources and handling complicated in-house horse trading.”

That’s one way of putting it. The Commission is inching its way towards invoking emergency powers to push through parts of its rearmament slush fund. It’s getting pushback from the European Parliament, but the fact is Ursula can do it anyways with minimal support from EU governments. She’s likely just waiting for the right moment. Let’s look at the status of the European militarization billions. On March 19, the Commission introduced a 150 billion euro proposal — a first installment of what’s to be at least $900 billion— for establishing the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) through the reinforcement of European defence industry Instrument. It wants to move forward with it under Article 122 emergency powers which need only a qualified majority in the Council —as opposed to the usual consensus— which allows Ursula and friends to get around pesky vetoes from member countries.

The procedure for 122 is as follows: 1) the Commission proposes a Council measure; following which 2) the Council adopts the measure in line with [qualified majority voting]. No additional elements or participants are envisaged. This article allows the proposal to bypass parliamentary negotiations and go straight to the Council for negotiation and adoption. The Parliament’s role is reduced to submitting suggestions and requesting debates. How’s that for your democratic rules-based order? In an April 23 secret vote, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affair unanimously backed a legal opinion rejecting the Commission’s attempt to bypass it on a 150 billion euro rearmament fund. While it is a non-binding vote, it does signal opposition to Ursula’s plan, but it’s not some principled stand for the will of the people or any romantic notion like that.

No, it’s more about dividing up slices of the pie as European weapons industry lobbyists are increasingly active in Brussels and are trying to make sure their clients are rewarded. And so much of the feeble opposition is over getting a stronger “buy European” clause in SAFE (it currently requires 65 percent of war consumables and complex systems to come from within the EU, Ukraine, or EEA/EFTA states, which includes Turkiye and Norway. Why must Ursula’s commission sideline the Parliament and some member states in order to spend 900 billion on military purchases? They lay it out in their proposal. There’s the usual nonsense about Russia:

The EU and its Member States now face an intensifying Russian aggression against Ukraine and a growing security threat from Russia. It is also now clear that this threat will persist in the foreseeable future, considering that Russia has shifted to a war-time economy enabling a rapid scaleup of its military capabilities and replenishment of its stocks. The European Council therefore underlined, in its conclusions of 6 March 2025, that “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its repercussions for European and global security in a changing environment constitute an existential challenge for the European Union”. There’s also the Trump abandonment syndrome: At the same time, the United States, traditionally a strong ally, is clear that it believes it is over-committed in Europe and needs to rebalance, reducing its historical role as a primary security guarantor.

Read more …

” The disconnect between rulers and ruled has never been wider. The elites, ensconced in their Brussels bubble, continue to govern as if the people are an inconvenience, as if democracy means compliance rather than choice. The social contract is broken, and the backlash will only intensify.”

The Death of Old Europe (von Hoffmeister)

The European Union, that grand and failing dream of technocrats, is dying. Its decline is not sudden or dramatic but a slow unraveling, a bureaucratic collapse in which every policy designed to sustain it only hastens its demise. It starves itself on the thin gruel of ideology – open borders dissolving nations into contested spaces, green mandates suffocating industry under the weight of unattainable standards, and a moralizing anti-Russian fervor that has left it isolated and energy-dependent. Once, Europe was the center of empires, the birthplace of civilizations that shaped the world. Now, it is a patient refusing medicine, convinced that its sickness is a form of enlightenment, that its weakness is a new kind of strength. The architects of this experiment still speak in the language of unity, but the cracks in the foundation are too deep to ignore.

Immigration was the first act of self-destruction, the point at which Western Europe’s ruling class severed itself from the people it claimed to govern. The elites, intoxicated by the rhetoric of multicultural utopia, flung open the gates without consideration for cohesion, for identity, for the simple reality that societies require more than abstract ideals to function. Cities have fractured into enclaves where parallel societies thrive, where police hesitate to patrol, where the native-born learn to navigate their own streets with caution. The promise was harmony, a blending of cultures into something vibrant and new. The reality is a quiet disintegration, a thousand unspoken tensions simmering beneath the surface. Politicians continue to preach the virtues of “diversity,” but the people – those who remember what it was like to have a shared history, a common language – are beginning to revolt. The backlash is no longer confined to the fringe. It is entering the mainstream, and the establishment trembles at what it has unleashed.

Then came the green delirium, the second pillar of Western Europe’s self-annihilation. Factories shutter under the weight of environmental regulations, farmers take to the streets in protest, and the middle class is squeezed between rising energy costs and stagnant wages. The climate must be saved, the leaders insist, even if the cost is economic ruin. Germany, once the industrial powerhouse of the continent, dismantles its nuclear infrastructure in favor of unreliable wind and solar power, only to return to coal when the weather turns unfavorable. There is a madness in this, a kind of collective hysteria where dogma overrides pragmatism, where the pursuit of moral purity blinds the ruling class to the suffering of ordinary citizens. The rest of the world watches, perplexed, as the EU willingly cripples itself for a cause that demands global cooperation – cooperation that is nowhere to be found. China builds coal plants, America drills for oil, India prioritizes growth over emissions, and the EU alone marches towards austerity, convinced that its sacrifice will inspire others. It will not.

And Russia – the great miscalculation, the strategic blunder that may yet prove fatal. Europe had a choice: to engage with Moscow as a partner, to integrate it into a stable continental order, or to treat it as an eternal adversary. It chose the latter, aligning itself fully with Washington’s confrontational stance, severing ties that had once provided cheap energy and economic stability. The pipelines are silent now, the ruble flows eastward, and Western Europe buys its gas at inflated prices from distant suppliers, enriching middlemen while its own industries struggle. Russia, spurned and sanctioned, turns to China, to India, to those willing to treat it as something other than a pariah. The Eurasian landmass is reconfiguring itself, and Europe is not at the center. The EU is on the outside, looking in, a spectator to its own irrelevance. The Atlanticists in Brussels believed they could serve two masters: their own people and Washington’s geopolitical whims. They were wrong.

In this unfolding drama, America and Russia emerge as twin pillars of Western civilization – different in temperament but united in their commitment to preserving sovereign nations against globalist dissolution. America, the last defender of the West’s entrepreneurial spirit and individual liberty, stands firm against the forces that would destroy borders and identities. Russia, keeper of traditional values and Christian heritage, guards against the cultural nihilism consuming Europe. Both understand that civilizations must defend themselves or perish; neither suffers the death wish that afflicts the Western European elites. And of Western Europe? It is a ghost at the feast, clutching its empty wineglass, muttering about “norms” and “values” as the world moves on without it. The European elites still cling to their illusions, still believe in the power of rhetoric over reality.

They speak of “strategic autonomy” while marching in lockstep with Washington’s wars, of “diversity” while their own cities become battlegrounds of competing identities, of “democracy” while silencing dissent with bureaucratic machinery and media censorship. The voters sense the decay. They rebel – in France, where Marine Le Pen’s supporters grow by the day; in Italy, where Giorgia Meloni’s government rejects the EU’s dictates on immigration; in Hungary, where Viktor Orbán openly defies the liberal orthodoxy. Yet the machine grinds on, dismissing every protest as populism, every objection as fascism. The disconnect between rulers and ruled has never been wider. The elites, ensconced in their Brussels bubble, continue to govern as if the people are an inconvenience, as if democracy means compliance rather than choice. The social contract is broken, and the backlash will only intensify.

Read more …

“Carney’s globalist net-zero platform will be sufficient to bring Canada to its knees without ever having to confront a political adversary.”

Canada’s War on… Canada (Solway)

Canada is walking down a dangerous path. In a recent episode of “The Winston Marshall Show,” Steve Bannon has warned that “Canada could become ‘the next Ukraine’ if Russia or China presses territorial claims in the Arctic. “There’s no money there to defend anybody,” Bannon said, arguing that the United Kingdom, Canada’s historic security partner, “can’t defend itself.” Bannon suggested that Ottawa has only “two, maybe three years to act before external pressures harden.”

Bannon’s warning about Canada becoming a second Ukraine seems a gross exaggeration. Yet we recall that both Trudeau père and Trudeau fils were enamored of Communist China, that China has interfered in Canada’s elections favoring the Liberals, that Mark Carney is beholden to China to the tune of hundreds of millions in loans and “over $3 billion in politically sensitive investments with Chinese state-linked real estate and energy companies,” and that Canada hosted the Chinese military for tactical training in cold-weather warfare. Carney, a man of no charisma and less common sense for all his parenthetical savoir faire and encapsulated expertise, has already said that Canada’s friendly relationship and customary economic partnership with the U.S. is at an end. Meanwhile, an impoverished Canada will need generous amounts of foreign aid and may conceivably get it from China, in exchange for military bases and Canada-China cooperation in the Arctic.

As of this writing, Carney is in Washington for talks with Donald Trump. (Note, Trump is not in Ottawa for talks with Carney.) As Managing Editor for the Saskatchewan Standard, Christopher Oldcorn reports, Carney warned that any new deal “must be negotiated on our terms.” Trump was not impressed, telling Fox Business, “I’m not sure what he wants to see me about, but I guess he wants to make a deal.” Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick added, “They have their socialist regime, and it’s basically feeding off of America.” Carney is out of his depth, and Canada is in for a shock. Should a deal eventually emerge, it will not be on Carney’s terms.

At present, Canada reminds me of that preposterous knight in the Monty Python classic “The Holy Grail,” who continues pugnaciously challenging his antagonist even after he has lost both his arms and both his legs in the fight. This does not suggest that Canada is not a dangerous stump, and that it does not pose a threat to the U.S., for its alignment with China might conceivably mean a fentanyl-producing, militarily powerful, economically belligerent antagonist encroaching on its Arctic perimeter and entrenched along the 4,000-mile undefended border with the U.S. I would not put such recklessness past Carney as he labors diligently to turn Canada into a plebiscitarian sinkhole, deprived of political virility, reduced to penury and dependent for its survival on a foreign enemy.

I don’t see the U.S. engaging in open warfare with Canada, which Bannon considers a possibility. The scenario is far-fetched. Canada is not Ukraine; it is Lower Slobbovia. If you run a podcast called a “War Room,” you are prone to flights of fancy. This is not 1812, and America does not need to fire a single shot. It can batter Canada economically into submission with a stroke of the president’s pen despite China’s axial influence. America needs nothing that Canada has to offer, says Trump, neither cars, energy, lumber, etc. But it is also clear that the U.S. will not tolerate a Chinese presence on its northern border. For all his absurd bluster and his putting a Canadian slant on things, little man Carney will have to listen up.

Regrettably, Canada has become what Christopher Rufo, applying a well-known psychological personality concept, calls a “Cluster B society,” where “ideology replaces competence as a marker of distinction,” focusing on emotional excess, self-image, and dramatic posturing and leading to what psychologist Andrzej Lobaczewski calls a “pathocracy.” In a syndrome of this nature, Rufo laments, “The spontaneous life and beauty that are the fruits of a more balanced society will be snuffed out by grim commissars administering a Cluster B pathocracy. Our self-governing regime would be over.” Welcome to Canada and its preening prime minister.

Indeed, Canada is now foolishly engaged in a costly, surreptitious, self-harming skirmish with the U.S, which it could have avoided with a soupçon of maturity. The issue was never in doubt. To begin with, Canadian unity is fractured. There is little to no chance of gluing the pieces back together again and presenting a united front as a negotiating partner. It is at a distinct economic disadvantage in the so-called tariff war should Trump move to erase Canada’s $200 billion trade rip-off that helps to keep the country afloat, as Justin Trudeau himself admitted. Carney’s globalist net-zero platform will be sufficient to bring Canada to its knees without ever having to confront a political adversary. For the truth is that Canada is at war with itself. And it does not matter if it wins or loses, since it amounts to the same thing.

Read more …

“What Canada was, is not as important as what Canada is, and what it is becoming.” —Jason Stephan

Canada: A Post-Election Autopsy (Solway)

As a result of the Liberal victory and the installation of Mark Carney as prime minister of Canada in the April 28, 2025, election, the country is now speeding down the Trans-Canada highway to certain destruction. Carney, of course, is a global financier, a promoter of centralized government control, a lover of censorship, and a climate change apostle who doubles as a trustee of the World Economic Forum and the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Change and Finance. He carries three passports, Canadian, Irish, and British, and has spent the last decade out of Canada, which obviously makes him the ideal candidate for the prime ministership, Canadian to the bone. He is, in fact, the spitting image of the Canadian psyche, a small man, slack-faced, awkward in comportment, grim and humorless, rag doll-like in his person. The fit is almost providential.

As one commenter put it, “Carney looks the part… the funeral director of Canada.” The question that is making the rounds is how the Liberal Party managed to erase a 20-point deficit in the polls and shrug off three terms of social and economic devastation that have seen the country plummet toward third-world status while at the same time elevating the most unprepossessing choice possible to the prime minister’s office. Is the nation brain-dead? Does it have a death wish? Is it merely greed for government largesse? What are the factors that have contributed to Canada’s accelerating decline? There are several possibilities, acting singly or in concert. Donald Trump: When Trump began trolling Canada with his 51st state bagatelle, he proved once again that Canadians have no sense of humor.

Canadians, by and large, with thank-the-Lord saving exceptions, are an earnest, priggish, self-massaging, unexciting people of limited intelligence who, like most of a leftist bent, cannot recognize a joke, especially when brandished by an American. What former New York Post correspondent Emma Jo-Morris says of the media seems largely true of the Canadian electorate: “The media isn’t biased because it’s liberal; it’s biased because it has no concept of reality. The people who make media content are incapable of separating their own self-worship from objective truth.” Of course, being Liberal and having no concept of reality amount to the same thing. So Canadians took Trump seriously and got their hackles up, huffing and puffing and strutting and posturing. But when Trump launched his tariff fusillade, this was a bridge too far.

Canadians girded themselves for war like a mighty gnat prepared to crush an elephant rather than adopt the grown-up approach of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who visited Trump and proposed a negotiated settlement. This was Mark Carney’s and the Liberals’ gold-plated opportunity to rally a subfusc Canadian electorate to a losing cause and scrub the Conservatives’ favorable poll numbers, leading ultimately to an electoral victory that will likely destroy the country. Indeed, Canada is more ragged than it ever was. What was once a Hudson Bay blanket is now a patchwork quilt. The New Democratic Party: After years of propping up the Liberals, leader Jagmeet Singh and the NDP came crashing down. The Party lost not only its longtime leader but also its official party status.

Its 25 parliamentary seats were reduced to seven. It is likely that many of the lost 18 seats defected to Carney’s Liberals, putting them over the top, good enough for a minority government, just three seats short of a majority. There is speculation that some or all of the remaining NDP rump may follow suit, giving the Liberals the majority government they desperately crave. Biased Coverage: The Canadian media and paper press are basically no different from their Pravda-like American cousins, trafficking in lies, innuendoes, suppressions, and outright interference in the electoral process. This is their stock-in-trade. With only a few outliers like Rebel News, the Western Standard, and two or three others, the press has become a vast and undifferentiated propaganda network for the Liberal machine, flush with Liberal plugola. Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, is supported by an annual $1.4 billion grant, which Carney has promised to inflate and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre had threatened to eliminate. The sequel was predictable.

Read more …

Can’t conquer Iran, Victor. Start there. Or Yemen.

The Trump-Iran Deal, Explained (Victor Davis Hanson)

Just recently, the Houthis, that is the terrorist organization that controls half of Yemen and has been hit hard by the United States for its interruption of maritime commerce in the Red Sea and its serial attacks on Israel, has been—I guess you would say—neutered. Its port facilities, its airport, a lot of its missile depots, its command and control have all been neutralized. But yet, here they are with a vestigial force. They just sent a missile, not just into Israel, but into Israel’s international Ben Gurion Airport. It almost hit one of the terminals. Didn’t kill anybody. But it made a huge crater right on the periphery of the airport grounds. And for some reason it was not intercepted by Israel’s tripartite missile defense system. Let me add another incident. Just recently, almost at the same time, four more terrorists were arrested in the United Kingdom for organizing Iranian-inspired terror against citizens of Britain. And of course, we remember that Iran was involved in an effort to assassinate President Donald Trump.

What am I getting at is, we’re right in the middle of negotiations with Iran. Donald Trump feels that they are historically vulnerable. The Assad regime, their lifeline to the Arab world, is gone. Kaput. Vanished. They can’t use the Damascus airport to airlift weapons for Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been reduced dramatically in its effectiveness. Hamas is—I don’t know what you’d call Hamas. It’s living underground among the rubble of Gaza. And then, of course, the Houthis, as I mentioned, have been attacked. Israel has demonstrated that it can penetrate, at will, the supposedly formidable air defenses of Iran. The United States, in addition, is building up its strategic bombing force—in Diego Garcia and in areas that can reach Iran—with the capability of dropping these 20,000 to 30,000-pound bunker busters. We have two carriers that will soon be assembled near there.

What am I getting at again? The pressure is all on Iran. Militarily. Diplomatically. Economically. Socially. Culturally. What do I mean by that? Culturally, there is about 30% to 40% of the country are non-Farsi Persian speakers. And they’re very restive, angry. Power outages. The regime is unpopular. It’s diverted billions of dollars to these terrorist appendages that now didn’t pay off, that they’re defunct. And so, Donald Trump thinks that he, with this maximum pressure, putting this crushing oil embargo—which by the way, former President Joe Biden lifted—that he can bring them to negotiations one last time. Personally, I don’t think he can. Nothing that that regime has ever said is accurate. Nobody in the MAGA movement wants an optional war in the Middle East. But they will have nuclear weapons, perhaps in a year. So, what is the likely scenario? The likely scenario is they will lose face if they negotiate away their nuclear weapons.

That is the only lever they have over Western powers now that their terrorist children are all gone. So, I don’t think they’re gonna make a deal. They’re gonna delay, delay, delay; lie, lie, lie; use the Houthis. And they are playing with fire because once Donald Trump gives them an opportunity for a peaceful way out of their dilemma—that is they can negotiate an end to their nuclear program. They don’t need nuclear power. They have the fourth-largest fossil fuel reserves in the world. They have enough energy for themselves and for export for an endless amount of time. And yet they still are working on this nuclear project, not for peaceful energy generation, but to have a nuclear deterrent. And so, what we should look for in the next few months is that an exasperated Trump administration will finally throw up its hands and say, “You can’t deal with these people, but they’re not gonna get a nuclear weapon.”

At that point, one of two things will happen—I should say one of three things. Israel will hit back because of the Houthis’ attack on its airport. And that could come sooner or later. Or the United States will intervene. I don’t think it’ll intervene on its own. Or there’ll be a joint Israeli-American operation. But by the end of the year, I don’t think Iran will have a nuclear deterrent. And then we’re gonna be watching a mystery unfold. If it should be hit, and if it should lose its nuclear potential, what will be the reaction of the Iranian people? Will they be angry that their national sovereignty has been attacked? Or will they be delighted that this 50-year hated regime is now gone and they don’t have to spend money on these Arab terrorist groups that have brought them no profit? That’ll be something to see. And I think we’ll see it at the end of the year.

Read more …

“Decades after the civil rights movement, academia is obsessed with fixating not on intelligence, qualifications, or content of character, but rather on skin color..”

$373M in DEI Funding at US Universities in Four Years (Salgado)

Educayshun has become mere propaganda at hundreds of American schools and universities. In fact, Defending Education has identified a staggering $373 million in DEI funding since 2016 across more than a hundred institutions of higher learning. Defending Ed investigated 130 colleges and universities across 44 states and Washington, D.C. to date, identifying 281 diversity, equity, and inclusion funds (DEI). These include scholarships and programs based around race and sexual “identity.” Defending Ed warned that, while many universities and colleges have now officially ended DEI programs under Trump administration pressure, in many cases, the programs have simply been renamed or gone underground for the time being. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, for example, simply retitled its “Office of Diversity and Inclusion Fund” to be the “Community and Belonging Support Fund.”

Just add more pablum for a surface-level makeover. From the Defending Ed website: “To date, we have been able to track down over $373,344,424 in donations to fund institution DEI programs, scholarships, and offices. While some of the funding has been tracked down via “Day of Giving” style campaign webpages, the vast majority of the money has been traced through university announcements, webpages, and reports. The information contained in this report primarily covers the years from 2021 to present with one or two exceptions noted below. Decades after the civil rights movement, academia is obsessed with fixating not on intelligence, qualifications, or content of character, but rather on skin color.

This is a vast disservice to students of all ethnicities, and has turned our institutions of higher learning into little more than propaganda machines. Defending Ed also provided examples of some of the DEI projects and funds. The University of Michigan “raised over $98,665,269 for a wide range of DEI initiatives and funds, including scholarships for first-generation students” and established a “George Floyd Memorial Scholarship.” According to a 2023 University of Delaware report, the university was able to raise $21 million to expand its diversity, equity, and inclusion programming.

One of the funds included in the donor haul was it’s “Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, or JEDI, Fund” which states that support “helps provide programs, resources and opportunities to cultivate educated and empowered individuals who not only understand the origins of societal challenges related to equity and social justice but also have the tools to create solutions to address them.”… The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of the Arts and Architecture includes its “Anti-racism Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” program which includes the UCLA Arts Racial Equity Fund. Meanwhile, the University of California, Berkeley fundraised $186,420 for “Increasing Diversity and Opportunity at Cal” during a 2025 campaign. These universities need to be exposed and their federal funding cut off so long as they continue to promote racist DEI.

Read more …

Altman doesn’t dare to go up against Musk? it’s not just them anymore. It’s people seeing endless profit vs people seeing endless trouble.

OpenAI Blinks: Scraps For-Profit Plan After Outside Pressure (ZH)

In a blog post overnight, the OpenAI Board revealed that its nonprofit arm would retain control of the chatbot company following backlash over its attempt to restructure into a for-profit business. “We made the decision for the nonprofit to retain control of OpenAI after hearing from civic leaders and engaging in constructive dialogue with the offices of the Attorney General of Delaware and the Attorney General of California,” the OpenAI Board wrote in a blog post. Last fall, OpenAI’s Sam Altman was preparing to overhaul the company’s structure and transition to a for-profit business—an effort that sparked a heated legal battle with co-founder Elon Musk, who sought to keep OpenAI ‘open’. The board provided new details about OpenAI’s evolving structure:

OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit, and is today overseen and controlled by that nonprofit. Going forward, it will continue to be overseen and controlled by that nonprofit. Our for-profit LLC, which has been under the nonprofit since 2019, will transition to a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)–a purpose-driven company structure that has to consider the interests of both shareholders and the mission. The nonprofit will control and also be a large shareholder of the PBC, giving the nonprofit better resources to support many benefits. Our mission remains the same, and the PBC will have the same mission.

“We want our nonprofit to be the largest and most effective nonprofit in history that will be focused on using AI to enable the highest-leverage outcomes for people,” Altman wrote in a letter to employees. He also provided details about OpenAI’s evolving structure: OpenAI’s nonprofit will remain in control of the organization after discussions with civic leaders and attorneys general from California and Delaware. The for-profit LLC will convert to a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)—a mission-aligned model also used by other AI labs like Anthropic and X.ai.

This move replaces the old capped-profit structure with a simpler equity-based model, but does not represent a sale. The nonprofit will retain oversight and become a major shareholder in the PBC, giving it more resources to advance AI for broad societal benefit. A new nonprofit commission will help guide efforts to ensure AI supports public good in areas like health, education, science, and public services. OpenAI says this new structure will enable it to make faster and safer progress toward its mission of democratizing AGI. Meanwhile, Marc Toberoff, lead counsel for Elon Musk in the ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI, told Bloomberg via email that Altman’s decision to scale back for-profit plans “changes nothing.”

“OpenAI’s announcement is a transparent dodge that fails to address the core issues: charitable assets have been and still will be transferred for the benefit of private persons, including Altman, his investors and Microsoft,” Toberoff said. In March, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers blocked Musk’s request to stop Altman from restructuring OpenAI into a for-profit company. This led the judge to expedite a trial for this fall. Given “the public interest at stake and potential for harm if a conversion contrary to law occurred,” Rogers said, adding that an expedited trial later this year would be on “core” claim that OpenAI’s structure conversion plan is unlawful and “potentially the interrelated contract-based claims.” Earlier this year, a Musk-led group offered to purchase OpenAI for around $100 billion, a bid that was quickly rejected.

Read more …

“Now, at long last, we can see the fruit of the corrupt tree sprouting in our court system, where judges help illegal immigrants escape through the back door of the courtroom, where other judges demand the return of deported gang members or halt the deportation of antisemitic radicals, and where every effort to put America first is ruled unconstitutional..”

(None Dare Call It) Treason of the Judiciary (Miele)

Thursday, April 24, was a day like any other day—the sun came up, the sun went down, and President Donald Trump was hit with at least three nationwide injunctions by federal district court judges. That’s just the way it goes if you are a president who wants to take back America from the entrenched left-wing bureaucracy and restore common sense to government before it is too late. The danger of the bureaucracy was predicted by Julien Benda in his 1927 book “The Treason of the Clerks,” which warned of the danger of the intellectual class adopting political passions that had previously been the sole domain of the masses. We see this most distinctly today in the federal bureaucracy, which I dare say has the greatest concentration of degree-holders from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia (and the like) of any sector in the nation, other than the incestuous universities themselves.

The treason that Benda described was the loss of independence of thought and dispassionate reason by intellectuals, and the accompanying subservience of intellect to political passions. During Trump’s first term, I wrote a column describing the danger that Benda had foreseen: Benda wrote at the beginning of the age of mass communication, and yet he already saw that “political passions have attained a universality never before known. … Thanks to the progress of communication and, still more, to the group spirit, it is clear that the holders of the same political hatred now form a compact impassioned mass, every individual of which feels himself in touch with the infinite number of others, whereas a century ago such people were comparatively out of touch with each other and hated in a ‘scattered’ way” …

It seems that we are now living out Benda’s worst nightmare—an age of manipulation of the masses by those who think they know better—whether you call them the “deep state,” the “opposition party,” “the national elite,” “the entrenched bureaucracy,” or just “the establishment.” And for the past 10 years, they have turned their hatred on Donald Trump. Without rhyme or reason, they fight him on every reform and arm themselves with invented scandal and fake news. Now, in Trump’s second term, we see that the bureaucracy has a close ally in the judiciary—not one judge, but multitudes that aim to preserve the status quo of liberal governance. If that wasn’t clear before April 24, there was no room for doubt after the day was filled with one court ruling after another telling Trump to “stand back and stand by” rather than to exercise his lawful power as president.

Here’s what tumbled out of the judicial branch that day: – A federal district court judge in California blocked Trump’s executive order that would have denied federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit or forbid cooperation with federal immigration authorities. – A Washington, D.C., judge blocked the Trump administration from following through on the president’s executive order requiring that voters in federal elections show proof of citizenship when registering. – A district judge in New Hampshire blocked efforts to defund public schools that utilize diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Not to be outdone, judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C., essentially issued the same order, giving added protection to one of the least popular programs ever shoved down the throat of American citizens. At the time, those were the latest of more than a dozen nationwide injunctions issued by unelected federal judges who appeared more interested in preserving and protecting left-wing shibboleths than the Constitution.

Also in courts across the nation that week were attempts by judges to reject Trump’s authority as commander in chief to ban transgender participation in the military, to deny Trump the right to strip security clearances from law firms that he says put national security interests second to political partisanship, and stop the administration’s efforts to eliminate federal news services such as Voice of America that engage in anti-American propaganda. Those are all in addition to the several injunctions issued relative to Trump’s promised reform of the immigration system to expedite deportation of illegal immigrants, especially those who have a criminal history or are members of international gangs. If that seems normal, it isn’t. There were only six nationwide injunctions during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, and only 12 during the Barack Obama presidency. That increased to 14 under President Joe Biden, which was surpassed by Trump in the first nine weeks of his second term when 15 such injunctions were issued.

Of course, Trump should be accustomed to such judicial abuse. In his first term, there were 64 injunctions against his policies, a staggering 92.2% issued by Democrat-appointed judges. Julien Benda would have clearly recognized the “political passions” that had supplanted the disinterested intellectual rigor we once expected of our judges. Yet because of our habituated respect for the separation of powers, none dare call it the treason of the judiciary. That of course is a reference to the 1960s tract “None Dare Call It Treason” by John A. Stormer. Stormer took on the country’s intellectual elites, blaming them for working against the interests of the nation by tolerating or quietly promoting communism. The left-wing elites of the day laughed it off as another right-wing conspiracy theory, but as time has passed it’s become clear that there was indeed a long-range effort to corrupt our institutions with Communism 101—reducing social acceptance of religion, turning education into indoctrination, and infiltrating government with the intelligentsia that thinks American values are outdated.

Now, at long last, we can see the fruit of the corrupt tree sprouting in our court system, where judges help illegal immigrants escape through the back door of the courtroom, where other judges demand the return of deported gang members or halt the deportation of antisemitic radicals, and where every effort to put America first is ruled unconstitutional. Fighting back against the overreach of the judiciary must be Trump’s No. 1 priority as he seeks to restore sanity to the federal government. Because the most important principle of constitutional law that is being decided in the next few months is whether the president is truly the chief executive or whether he serves at the pleasure of left-wing judges who put political passion ahead of national interests. In the ultimate irony, the case must be decided by nine men and women in black robes, the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The fate of the nation’s future hinges on whether they will seek justice impartially or be swayed by partisan rancor. Unfortunately, it’s an open question.

Read more …

“After Trump’s triumphant return to the White House, he appointed Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense. Since then, recruitment numbers have exploded, after years of the number of recruits tumbling..”

SCOTUS Rules On Trump’s Ban On Transgenders In The Military (Downey Jr)

The Supreme Court issued a brief order on Tuesday allowing the Trump administration’s ban on transgender people in the military to proceed. Though the order was unsigned, the usual suspects, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, locked arms and said they would have denied the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court’s order. Several years after the Biden administration chased warriors away from the military by mandating the COVID vaccine and also encouraging transgender people to join through DEI initiatives, the Supreme Court paused a decision by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, located in Seattle, who suggested that Trump’s decision to ban transgender soldiers was unconstituional, claiming that it was “unsupported, dramatic and facially unfair.”

“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,” Trump’s decree stated. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in San Francisco, refused to put a hold on Judge Settle’s decision. The ruling is sure to set off a dumpster fire of liberal whining, crying, and protests, not to mention another reason the left will complain that “Trump hates the LGBTFBI crew.” Shortly after taking back the White House, Trump issued a directive stating that people with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria would no longer be allowed to serve in any branch of the U.S. military. Under the Biden administration, many transgender people chose to join the military, some of whom opted for costly gender reassignment surgeries. Trump also released a directive stating that federal funds would no longer be spent on such surgeries.

Another important factor to keep in mind regarding Trump’s decision to keep out transgenders, the woke, and people hired and promoted through DEI initiatives is the very real notion that woke military members would be more likely to fight fellow Americans when told to do so, as some news media pundits are inclined to believe. It is unknown how long it will take to purge the military of transgender service members who pretend to be a gender other than that which science deemed them at birth. Left-leaning news sites, like Reuters, are reporting the story and suggesting that it is an attack against people who do not agree with the “gender they were assigned at birth.”

The decision is just the latest in a wave of Supreme Court victories for President Trump. The exact number of service members currently suffering from gender dysphoria is unknown, but some believe there are as many as 14,000 transgender people throughout all five branches of the military, though a senior-level member of the Defense Department suggested that there may be only 4,240 who are currently serving. After Trump’s triumphant return to the White House, he appointed Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense. Since then, recruitment numbers have exploded, after years of the number of recruits tumbling during Joe Biden’s single four-year presidential term.

Read more …

“..If the nomination is not successful by May 20th, there is a scenario where DC Judge James Boasberg could appoint the U.S. attorney. Mary McCord is smiling.”

President Trump Sends Message of Support for Ed Martin as DC Attorney (CTH)

President Trump has sent a message of support via Truth Social on behalf of Ed Martin to be confirmed as U.S. Attorney for the important Washington DC office. Multiple ‘republican’ members of the Senate do not support the nomination. If the nomination is not successful by May 20th, there is a scenario where DC Judge James Boasberg could appoint the U.S. attorney. Mary McCord is smiling.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “Ed Martin is going through the approval process to be U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia. According to many but, in particular, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., his approval is IMPERATIVE in terms of doing all that has to be done to SAVE LIVES and to, MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN. This is a passion for Ed, more so than for almost anyone that I have seen. One of the reasons that I was so successful in winning the 2024 Presidential Election is my commitment to Health, and helping to Make America Healthy. The Cost of the Chronic Disease Epidemic has gotten out of control over the past four years of the Biden Presidency. We are going to take our Country BACK, and FAST. Ed Martin will be a big player in doing so and, I hope, that the Republican Senators will make a commitment to his approval, which is now before them. Ed is coming up on the deadline for Voting and, if approved, HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN. When some day in the future you look back at your Vote for Ed Martin, you will be very proud of what you have done for America and America’s Health. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The Republican opposition group to Ed Martin is the traditional element of the party who stand against the basic principles of what the MAGA movement is all about.

“Via CNN – […] Trump and his allies have a short window to get Martin over the finish line. If Republicans don’t confirm him by May 20 when his interim position expires, there would be a new process to play out in picking a new nominee. One option could be US District Judge James Boasberg appointing someone to become DC’s top prosecutor. Boasberg, a Barack Obama appointee, has presided over a number of high-profile cases challenging Trump policies, drawing the ire of the president and his allies. After this story published on Monday evening, Trump posted about Martin’s confirmation battle on Truth Social writing that his “approval is IMPERATIVE.” Top Justice Department officials, who had preferred another candidate for the job, have had to caution Martin about some of his public activities since taking on the job on an interim basis, sources briefed on the matter told CNN.

Despite growing blowback on the nomination, allies of Trump and Martin have made clear that the president has so far been thrilled with Martin’s job performance. “Martin is President Trump’s favorite US Attorney,” one source familiar with his nomination process previously told CNN. . On top of Trump’s direct calls to GOP senators, 23 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley and Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Monday urging them to move forward on Martin’s confirmation, according to a copy shared with CNN. Trump ally Charlie Kirk also posted on X over the weekend about the need to successfully confirm Martin. DOJ officials who may have wanted someone else for the job have come to terms with the fact that he is Trump’s pick and are doing everything they can to help get him confirmed, sources briefed on the matter told CNN.

Martin has successfully implemented Trump’s “law and order agenda” and been a “fantastic U.S. Attorney for D.C.,” said Alex Pfeiffer, White House principal deputy communications director. “The White House looks forward to his continued success in the role. Ed has shown he is the right man for the job.” Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are expected to keep Trump’s nominee on track, despite diminishing odds Martin will advance to see a full Senate vote.”

Let us not pretend amongst ourselves…. In basic truth, both the democrats and republicans lost in the 2024 election. Donald Trump defeated the republican candidate, Ron DeSantis, and Donald Trump defeated the democrat candidate, Kamala Harris. As the second term of President Trump continues, the republican party will show increasingly obvious opposition to all of the policies and results coming from the MAGA agenda. In the background of our political dynamic the Republican apparatus is already having conversations about what comes next, after the MAGA infection identified as President Trump is removed. When we ask ourselves why President Trump’s agenda hasn’t been codified by congressional action, the honest answer is, because the MAGA policy is not supported by the Republicans in congress. Nothing about this dynamic is likely to change. The republican resistance is simply wearing a mask right now, and there are certain times when that mask slips. It has always been thus….

Read more …

Boasberg rules!

This One Judge Keeps Getting Trump Cases, and It’s No Accident (Matt Margolis)

In a development that should send chills down the spine of every American who cares about the rule of law, Judge James Boasberg — you remember this guy, right? — has somehow ended up with case after case involving President Donald Trump’s second term. The D.C. swamp’s judicial machine continues its relentless assault on our duly elected president, with Boasberg emerging as its not-so-secret weapon. The so-called “random” assignment system has produced results that defy probability and reek of deliberate manipulation. The good news is that House Republicans are fighting back. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Darrell Issa (R-Calif), and Chip Roy (R-Texas) are demanding answers from Angela Caesar, the court clerk who oversees this suspicious case assignment system.

In a letter that Townhall obtained on Monday, they are demanding explanations for what any rational observer would recognize as a coordinated effort to undermine the Trump presidency. “Many of these nationwide injunctions have raised concerns that Article III judges are exceeding their constitutional authority by replacing the policy decisions of the duly elected President with their own preferences, eroding public trust in the integrity and fairness of our judicial system. Many high-profile cases challenging policy decisions of the Trump Administration have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (District Court),” the letter states. “As Congress considers potential legislative reforms to address the abuse of nationwide injunctions and adjust the national distribution and local assignment of cases challenging Executive Branch policy decisions, we write to request information about the District Court’s assignment of cases.”

Boasberg has been handed several significant cases within a remarkably short timeframe relating to the Trump administration. His docket now includes cases challenging the administration’s implementation of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as matters concerning administration officials’ use of the Signal app, both assigned less than two weeks apart. But that’s not all. The judge is also overseeing cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency and disputes over federal funding for programs allegedly violating civil rights laws (though the latter was dismissed at the plaintiff’s request). While the D.C. District Court’s local rules govern case assignments, the concentration of such politically sensitive matters under one judge has sparked legitimate questions about the process. The timing and clustering of these assignments demand closer scrutiny.

Last month, the House passed critical legislation aimed at restraining these activist judges who have abandoned their constitutional role in favor of political warfare. But is it too little, too late? The Left’s judicial assault continues unabated while the mainstream media yawns or actively cheers it on. The American people deserve to know: Who is pulling the strings behind these courthouse doors? How deep does this corruption go? Furthermore, will anyone be held responsible for the misuse of our judicial system against the President of the United States?

Read more …

“America First Legal, led by Trump’s powerhouse advisor Stephen Miller..”

America First Legal sues Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (JTN)

The President Donald Trump-aligned legal group America First Legal Foundation on Monday sued Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, accusing him of acting beyond his scope as head of the U.S. Judicial Conference. The lawsuit was also lodged against Robert Conrad, who serves as the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, according to Fox News. The legal action accuses the men of operating beyond their scope of resolving cases or controversies, citing their cooperation with Congress in helping them investigate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and a willingness to create or adopt a code of ethics for the court.

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” the foundation said. “The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” which would be overseen by the president and not the courts. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden will preside over the case.

Read more …

Complex. Given their history and their nuclear status, they should never be allowed to come even this far. Call Xi.

“By Air Marshal Anil Chopra (Retired), an Indian Air Force veteran fighter test pilot and is the former Director-General of the Center for Air Power Studies in New Delhi.”

The Treaty That Kept India And Pakistan In Check Is Gone. Now What? (Chopra)

India launched ‘Operation Sindoor’ on the night of May 7, targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan in retaliation for a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgram, Kashmir last month. New Delhi stated that it hit at least nine targets. “Our actions have been focused, measured, and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in the selection of targets and method of execution,” the Indian government said in a statement. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif descried the strikes as a “cowardly” attack and said Islamabad “has every right to respond forcefully to this act of war imposed by India, and a forceful response is being given.” Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated to military actions following the killing of 26 innocent vacationers in Pahalgam, Kashmir by Pakistan-backed terrorists in a Hamas-style terror attack.

Pakistan Army and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) links were established by India’s National Investigation Agency days after the mass killing. The public was angry, and sought appropriate revenge. A wide range of diplomatic and economic measures were announced by both nations following the attack. Remarkably, India has put the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in abeyance for the first time since the pact was inked by the two neighbors. Rejecting India’s move to suspend the IWT, Pakistan warned that any diversion of water will be treated as an ‘Act of War.’ Islamabad also said that it would hold “in abeyance” its participation in all bilateral agreements with India, including the landmark 1972 Simla Agreement.

Pakistan pledged a full-spectrum national power response to any threat against its sovereignty, put its armed forces on high alert, and began selective mobilisation. Most measures were quite expected. But by suspending the Shimla Agreement, Pakistan unwittingly handed over big advantage to India. What is the Shimla Agreement? The Shimla agreement between India and Pakistan was signed on July 2, 1972 at Barnes Court (Raj Bhavan) in the town of Shimla in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh, between then-Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her Pakistani counterpart Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It was ratified on July 15, 1972 (by Pakistan), and August 3, 1972 (by India), and became effective the next day. The agreement had come in the wake of Pakistan’s comprehensive defeat in the 1971 war that split the country and created independent Bangladesh.

The agreement stated:“The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly arid harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.” The document was meant to lay the foundation of a peaceful and stable relationship between the two nations. It was decided that the two countries are resolved “to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.”

The treaty mandated that the two countries resolve issues bilaterally, and superseded the United Nation’s resolution on Kashmir. Perhaps more importantly, under the agreement, India and Pakistan established the Line of Control (LoC), previously called the Ceasefire Line, making it a quasi-border between the two nations. New Delhi succeeded in persuading Islamabad to change the name of the ceasefire line to the Line of Control (LoC), thus delinking it from the UN-imposed 1949 ceasefire line and highlighting that Kashmir was now a purely bilateral matter between India and Pakistan. The treaty clearly stated that Indian and Pakistani forces must be withdrawn to their respective sides of the “international border.” That in Jammu and Kashmir, the LoC resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice toward the recognised position of either side.

Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. India returned around 13,000 square kilometers of land taken in battle on the western border but retained some strategic areas, including Turtuk, Dhothang, Tyakshi, and Chalunka in Chorbat Valley, covering more than 883 square kilometers, so as to facilitate lasting peace. Both sides further agreed to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of the LoC. The fact that there has only been one limited war since the agreement was signed reflects its effectiveness. Some Indian bureaucrats later argued that a tacit agreement to convert this LoC into a international border, was reached during a one-on-one meeting between the two heads of government. Pakistani bureaucrats have denied any such thing. Nor was that acceptable to Indian public.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Green
https://twitter.com/SteveLovesAmmo/status/1919731269673365609

Spike

OMG
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1919702279579455976

Elephant

Baby
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1919766603157406118

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Apr 182025
 
 April 18, 2025  Posted by at 10:03 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


Salvador Dali The knight of death 1934

 

China Is In Much Deeper Trouble Than Most Realize (Strom)
US Expects Ukraine Ceasefire Within Weeks – Bloomberg (RT)
Europe Seeking ‘Direct Line’ With Trump – NYT (RT)
Meloni’s White House Trip Paves Way For European Union Rapprochement (JTN)
US Will Pull EU to Pieces Before Letting It Partner Up With China (Sp.)
Trump Admin Fights Back Against Rogue Judge’s Contempt Warning (Margolis)
Convicted FBI Lawyer Clinesmith Was Spared From Prison By Boasberg (JTN)
REPORT: President Trump Opposed Israeli Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites (CTH)
Pam Bondi Outlines Timeline and History of MS13 Illegal Alien (CTH)
Bondi Announces Lawsuit Against Maine Over Boys in Girls’ Sports (ET)
Rubio Shuts Down Censorship Program Biden Admin Claimed was Ended (Turley)
A Chihuahua That Thinks It’s A Lion: The Decline of Britain (Bordachev)
China Replacing US Oil With Canadian – Bloomberg (RT)
Trump Tariffs Could Cost EU $1.25 Trillion (RT)
German Anti-Russia Propaganda Is Reaching Nazi-era Levels (Amar)
Court Rules Google Illegally Holds “Monopoly Power” In Online Ad Tech (ZH)
Trump to Make an Epic Move at the IRS (Margolis)
Climate Myths (John Stossel)

 

 

 

 

Trust

Ritter

Poso
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1912573038303863007

What is China’s messsage here? That you might as well make it at home?No wait, that’s Trump’s message.
https://twitter.com/acnewsitics/status/1912841340968395205

 

 

Pepe

 

 

 

 

Contentious topic.

“[Xi] has counted on making the US economy dependent on China to keep us cowed. Trump is turning that logic on its head.”

China Is In Much Deeper Trouble Than Most Realize (Strom)

In the tariff war between China and the United States, a lot of chatter in the Pravda Media is about Xi Jinping’s defiance, his outreach to European countries and other less important but collectively significant developing countries, and his retaliatory moves against America. They make it sound like China has a lot of cards to play in the trade war with America. Collectively, these stories tell a tale: Donald Trump may have bitten off more than he can chew in his economic war with China. Trump’s moves will hollow out the American middle class! Europe will choose China over the United States! We are doomed! The Chinese are putting up a very brave front, until recently matching Trump’s blow for blow and pointing to Chinese willingness to endure everything up to eating grass for a year to defeat their adversaries. The Chinese plan for the long term! Yeah, well, not so much.

It all sounds impressive, and some pissed-off ally countries have even hinted at turning Chinaward as a response to what they consider a stab in the back from President Trump. Except…Reality. Our ticked-off allies are acting like 6-year-old children angry at their parents, threatening to run away. As much as they resent the United States, they are utterly dependent upon us and chose to be so. They are militarily weak and have sputtering economies that rely on the US as an export market. The United States, not themselves, defends its sea lines of communication, and they all know that China is a predatory power and not a reliable economic partner. The US not only represents 25% of the world economy, which is quite impressive in itself. But it has about 40% of the world’s consumer spending. No manufacturer of consumer products can afford to turn their backs on the US.

China may be an attractive market, but it is not sufficiently large enough to make a dent in their losses should the US close our markets to them. Which brings us to China itself. All that bluster sounds good, but it hides a stark reality: their economy is utterly dependent on US consumption. As much power as they have over us–they can cause us temporary pain as we adjust to finding new suppliers–we have infinitely more over them. Even their holdings in US debt are a double-edged sword. The US has relied on China to purchase government bonds, but as the old saying goes–If you owe the bank a billion dollars, you have power over them. The tariffs on China have been DEVASTATING. Not will be devastating. They are already devastating. China’s economy is reeling from the impact of tariffs, and public discontent is growing.

On Douyin, China’s version of TikTok, videos show citizens openly criticizing the government’s rigid stance on tariffs, with some even taking to the streets in protest. Chinese authorities are cracking down, forcibly dispersing crowds and suppressing evidence of unrest, but these efforts can only hold for so long. As joblessness and food shortages deepen, desperation is setting in, pushing people to the brink. China’s heavy reliance on the U.S. market gives America the upper hand—we can outlast them until they yield or face internal upheaval, potentially threatening President Xi’s leadership. China’s government is and appears quite strong because it is. But something can be both very strong and very brittle–meaning that it performs well until the moment it shatters. Think ceramics or glass, both of which can be very strong until the moment they shatter. They don’t bend and spring back–they are good until the breaking point, and then boom.

China’s government is not loved, but it is tolerated because it is strong and because it generally delivers on its major promise: economic growth, pulling a billion people out of poverty as quickly as possible. Tariffs aren’t just a threat to that strategy. If Trump really pushes, Xi Jinping’s government is in real trouble, and not the kind of trouble that means a midterm loss or failure to get reelected. This is regime-threatening. Xi, who looked to be in the catbird seat, could be facing a collapse of his legitimacy as leader of China. The Trump administration plans to use ongoing tariff negotiations to pressure U.S. trading partners to limit their dealings with China, according to people with knowledge of the conversations. The idea is to extract commitments from U.S. trading partners to isolate China’s economy in exchange for reductions in trade and tariff barriers imposed by the White House.

U.S. officials plan to use negotiations with more than 70 nations to ask them to disallow China from shipping goods through their countries, prevent Chinese firms from locating in their territories to avoid U.S. tariffs, and not absorb China’s cheap industrial goods into their economies. These measures are meant to put a dent in China’s already rickety economy and force Beijing to the negotiating table with less leverage ahead of potential talks between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The exact demands could vary widely by nation, given their degree of involvement with the Chinese economy. China’s strategy of growing its economic power and influence depends on a river of money with its headwaters in the United States. And its ability to make deals in countries not hostile to the United States is only possible because the US tolerates its moves and is committed to using only modest soft power to oppose the moves.

Donald Trump is not in a mood to tolerate expanding Chinese influence. Look at the Panama Canal port deals. Trump’s goal is not so much to own the canal as to deny China influence in the region. China, not Panama, is the target. In fact, most of Trump’s seemingly bizarre foreign policy moves–Canada as the 51st state and annexing Greenland are about trying to change the political geography to keep China from gaining influence in the Arctic. The flow of information out of China on economic performance since the tariffs hit is sparse, but I have been checking in on the social media chatter coming out of China, and the news is bleak. Consumer spending is down, export products are being sold at firesale prices, and business owners are locking doors and leaving employees unpaid. This is all chatter right now, but also likely true.

Trade wars suck for everybody involved, and when the cost of Chinese-made products go up there will be some pain here in the United States, whatever Trump and his people say. But none of this pain will be an existential threat to Trump, the country, or the Republican Party. There will be a price to pay, but it will be modest in the longer term. Not so for China. Their regime is under threat because their hand is much, much weaker. Weaker than Trump’s and weaker than people think. Of course, if China were a normal country, what Trump is doing would be a horrible policy. Generally speaking, destroying a trading partner’s economy is both morally questionable and terrible for business. Normally you would cut a deal. But China and the United States are heading for a war, and a big one at that. Xi Jinping has made that abundantly clear, and he has counted on making the US economy dependent on China to keep us cowed. Trump is turning that logic on its head.

Read more …

I don’t think they do. Looks more like they’re getting ready to pull out.

US Expects Ukraine Ceasefire Within Weeks – Bloomberg (RT)

Senior US officials have told European allies that Washington anticipates a comprehensive ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict within weeks, Bloomberg has reported. US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio outlined the timeline during a series of meetings in Paris on Thursday, hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron, Bloomberg reported the same day, citing anonymous sources. The European side sought to persuade the Americans that President Donald Trump should “harden its position toward Moscow,” the report said, describing the discussions as “the latest attempt by Europe to influence the outcome” of US talks with Russia.

Last week, Witkoff traveled to St. Petersburg for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which he has characterized as “compelling.” Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has criticized Trump’s envoy, accusing him of echoing “Russian narratives.” Russian officials have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of a ceasefire with Ukraine, asserting that Kiev’s backers in Europe are undermining US efforts. Speaking to journalists on Thursday, Moscow’s UN representative, Vassily Nebenzia, highlighted that Kiev has failed to adhere to a US-mediated moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure.

The diplomat said that the West’s record of using purported peace deals to build up the Ukrainian military means that expectations for a full ceasefire are “simply unrealistic at this stage.” “I cannot speak on behalf of President Trump,” Nebenzia said. “Perhaps, he knows better what I don’t know.” The 30-day energy ceasefire announced on March 18 is set to expire this week. When asked on Wednesday whether Russia would alter its military strategy, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Putin had issued no new directives on the matter.

Read more …

What Europe? Do you mean Von der Leyen, who has no links to any European, or Macron, who’s despised by those he does have a link to? Who would Trump talk to, and why?

Europe Seeking ‘Direct Line’ With Trump – NYT (RT)

European officials are seeking to establish a “direct line” of communication with US President Donald Trump, unsure whether his team can make any real decisions or is willing to cooperate at all, the New York Times reported on Thursday, citing sources. The report, based on interviews with numerous unnamed European officials, describes the US president as “the ultimate decision maker” who is often difficult to predict, making the goal of getting Trump’s ear a priority for the Europeans. Many top-level negotiators in European NATO countries have found traditional diplomatic channels – such as the State Department and embassies – ineffective, the report said. The confusion is compounded by the fact that the most effective interlocutors on the US side are not career diplomats but rather trusted special envoys and advisers, such as Elon Musk and Steve Witkoff, the article said.

The officials also told the NYT that their US counterparts are primarily focused on fulfilling the president’s wishes, showing limited interest in the perspectives of America’s allies. The Trump administration is “not terribly interested in what the Europeans have to say,” a NYT source said. “It’s all about unilateralism and they don’t consult much. After all, if they don’t consider us allies to that extent, why would they?” While senior Trump officials have held “cordial” talks with their European counterparts on a number of issues, “it is never clear to allies” whether they have “real power over foreign policy or trade,” the article said. ”Everyone in D.C. says you have to talk to Trump directly,” a senior European official told the NYT.

However, this has proved difficult even for the highest-ranking EU officials, as Trump “despises the collective power of the European Union and sees many NATO allies as freeloaders,” the paper said, adding that leaders such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are struggling to get on Trump’s calendar. The communication breakdown comes at a time of tenuous US-EU relations, marred by Washington’s decision to slap the bloc with tariffs and its push to make European NATO members pay more for their defense. Differences over the Ukraine conflict have also come into play, with Trump pursuing active diplomacy with Russia to end the conflict while the EU insists on supporting Kiev for “as long as it takes.”

Read more …

Yes, Meloni might be the EU contact for Trump. But Brussels would not give her any voice of her own.

Meloni’s White House Trip Paves Way For European Union Rapprochement (JTN)

President Donald Trump’s meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Thursday at the Oval Office came amid the ongoing trade dispute between the European Union and Washington and appeared to pave the way for a presidential visit to the continent to address the matter with its leaders. “I want to thank President Trump for having accepted an invitation to pay an official visit to Rome in the near future and consider the possibility in that occasion to meet also with Europe,” Meloni told reporters in the Oval Office. “The goal for me is to make the West great again, and I think we can do it together. We can and we will keep [working] on that.” The Italian leader generally ranks among those European figures with the strongest relationships with Trump himself.

A stalwart conservative and opponent of illegal immigration, Meloni shares many of Trump’s own positions, putting her on solid footing with her counterpart in the Oval Office. She further acknowledged those points in the meeting, saying “I know that we share lots of things on tackling illegal migration, on fighting against synthetic drugs.” Meloni was the only European Union leader to attend Trump’s 2024 inauguration and was among the first to congratulate him on his reelection. The pair have generally enjoyed a strong relationship and Trump himself called her a “great prime minister” during the meeting. Ahead of her trip to Washington, Meloni had been widely regarded as the European leader best suited to negotiating with Trump.

Italy is the 25th most populous nation globally with more than 59 million residents, according to data from the U.N. Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, and a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $2.3 trillion (USD). In January 2025, the United States exported $2.82 billion to and imported $6.11 billion from Italy, resulting in a negative trade balance of $3.29 billion. The Observatory of Economic Complexity reported that in January 2025, the top exports of the United States to Italy were Hormones ($580M), Petroleum Gas ($249M), and Crude Petroleum ($211M). In the same month, the main imports to the United States from Italy were packaged medicines ($634M), vaccines, blood, antisera, toxins and cultures ($436M), and commodities not specified otherwise ($268M).

In early April, Trump declared “Liberation Day” and announced the imposition of sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on most foreign nations. He later paused some of the largest tariffs, though he maintained a 10% baseline on most countries and left in place large-scale tariffs on China. Shortly after Liberation Day, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a “zero for zero” tariff offer to the United States, though Washington has yet to agree to any permanent arrangement. Trump initially imposed 20% tariffs on most European goods, but he has since brought Brussels down to the 10% rate for a 90-day period and Meloni was expected to pursue a resolution to the issue. Ahead of the meeting, the White House was optimistic that it would be able to secure agreements with many nations eager to reach lasting agreements. “We’ve got 90 deals in 90 days possibly pending here,” White House advisor Peter Navarro said.

Multiple White House officials have shared that sentiment publicly, though it is not clear which nations have expressed interest in negotiating trade deals. Meloni’s visit was decidedly more jovial than that of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which resulted in his removal from the White House after a tempestuous press conference. By contrast, the Oval Office meeting with Meloni saw many laughs as the pair exchanged compliments and pronounced the productiveness of their talks. “We have been talking about many bilateral topics and things that we can do together, about defense, about economic [sic], about economy, about space, about energy, Italy will have to increase its LNG imports and also nuclear that we are trying to develop,” Meloni said. “I think there can be ways to work together.” She further highlighted the commitment of Italian firms to American investment, but did not speak to the prospect of an individual trade deal between the United States and Italy.

“And the Italian enterprises will invest, as they’ve been doing for many years, as you know, in the next years, I think around $10 billions,” she added [sic]. “That shows how interconnected our economies are.” Meloni did not arrive officially as an envoy for the EU, though she did emphasize the importance of America’s relationship with the continent. During the Oval Office meeting, she pointed primarily to the economic relationships between Italy and the United States, but used the American relationship with her country as a segue to discuss the continental issue. “Mr. President, it’s not only about Italy, it’s about the entire Europe. The exchange between us is a very big one, investments, trade,” she said. “So I think even if we have some problems okay between the two shores of the Atlantic, it is the time that we try to sit down and find solutions.” “I know that when I speak about the West mainly, I don’t speak about a geographical space. I speak about [the] civilization, and I want to make that civilization stronger,” she added.

Read more …

“In the US’s ‘grand geopolitical chessboard’, the EU remains “one of the big, most important parts..”

US Will Pull EU to Pieces Before Letting It Partner Up With China (Sp.)

Trump’s global trade rampage has left the European Union and China seeking improved trade and investment relations. But that’s not a realistic prospect, says veteran Hong Kong-based Italian financial analyst Angelo Giuliano. For starters, “you need to keep in mind that the EU leaders were pre-selected by the Bilderberg Group and the US. Basically…the EU is actually a US project to destroy nation states,” Giuliano told Sputnik. Much of the bloc’s former and current top leadership (including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Economy Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni, Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, France’s Emmanuel Macron and NATO chief Mark Rutte) are members of the Atlanticist club or have spoken at its meetings.

Second, the EU doesn’t decide its own fate, a reality demonstrated by Washington’s success in decoupling the bloc from Russia’s cheap, plentiful energy resources, and forcing it to import much more costly US LNG, Giuliano said. This left the EU’s industrial output uncompetitive globally and triggered widespread deindustrialization as hundreds of companies downsized, stopped production and shifted production abroad, including to the US. Washington can and will do the same vis-à-vis Europe and China as it consolidates alliances against the emerging, BRICS-led multipolar world order, Giuliano believes. “There’s going to be some backfiring from the business community, but ultimately [Europe’s] leaders are going to side with the US as they see Russia and China as the enemies,” the observer emphasized.

Besides US vassalage, closer EU-China ties are stymied by other factors, like:
• China’s warm relations with Russia, a sharp contrast to active EU support for the anti-Russia proxy war in Ukraine.
• The acrimonious relationship with Russia means new infrastructure like the Northern Sea Route, the North-South Transport Corridor and overland transit via Russia remain closed to the EU. Instead, Europe-China trade relies on transit via the Red Sea, hindered by Houthi ops against the US and Israel.
• Fears of China’s sophisticated and cost-competitive automotive and green tech, which along with consumer goods, chemicals and steel could further deindustrialize the EU, especially as China enjoys access to discounted Russian energy while the bloc is stuck with pricey American gas deliveries.
• Unresolved industrial subsidies, agricultural dumping, IP and tech-related bitterness.

Ultimately, enhanced EU-China would be possible, and advantageous, Giuliano says, but only if Brussels “had a more neutral stance” in international affairs, “siding a little bit with BRICS and also the Belt and Road Initiative. “But again, there are a lot of obstacles for that, and the US would not allow it to happen, because they want to have a sphere of influence between North and South America and the EU. They want to control those blocs. And they fight with the multipolar world and this transition to a multipolar world,” the observer noted. In the US’s ‘grand geopolitical chessboard’, the EU remains “one of the big, most important parts,” Giuliano summed up.

Read more …

“A single Obama-appointed district judge is trying to hamstring the entire executive branch’s ability to enforce immigration law.”

Trump Admin Fights Back Against Rogue Judge’s Contempt Warning (Margolis)

The Trump administration has just shown exactly how to handle judicial activism: by fighting back with everything it has. In a bold move that’s sure to have the Democratic establishment sputtering with rage, Trump’s legal team filed an immediate appeal Wednesday evening against Judge James Boasberg’s outrageous contempt threat. The judge’s unprecedented power grab attempted to block crucial deportation flights, and he’s learning the hard way that the Trump administration isn’t taking his judicial overreach sitting down. The administration’s legal response was swift and devastating. Its appeal systematically dismantled Boasberg’s ruling, pointing out how it represents a “massive, unauthorized imposition on the Executive’s authority” and directly contradicts recent Supreme Court precedent.

The Trump administration’s brief appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court does not include any new details, as the facts of the case have already been heard by the district and appellate court. The appellate court last month ruled 2-1 to uphold Boasberg’s temporary restraining order. The Supreme Court, however, ruled 5-4 last month that the Trump administration could resume its deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act, so long as individuals subject to removal under the law were given due process protections, and the opportunity to pursue habeas relief – or the ability to have their case heard by a U.S. court prior to their removal. Boasberg said Wednesday that the court found that the Trump administration had demonstrated a “willful disregard” for his March 15 emergency order, which temporarily halted all deportation flights to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 statute providing for such deportations during “a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation.

What makes this pushback so satisfying is how it exposes the left’s double standard. When Trump follows the law and exercises his constitutional authority to protect Americans, leftists cry “contempt.” But when Democratic appointees like Boasberg ignore Supreme Court rulings they don’t like? Crickets from the mainstream media. Team Trump’s legal filing didn’t pull any punches. It meticulously detailed how Boasberg’s ruling attempts to usurp executive authority that the Supreme Court explicitly confirmed just last month. The 5-4 decision authorized these deportation flights, but apparently, left-wing district court judges think they can override the Supreme Court because “Orange man bad.” The administration’s response demonstrates exactly why Trump’s approach to the judiciary is so necessary.

While previous Republican administrations might have meekly complied with such judicial overreach, Trump’s team recognizes these tactics for what they are — an attempt to legislate from the bench. A single Obama-appointed district judge is trying to hamstring the entire executive branch’s ability to enforce immigration law. The Trump administration isn’t just fighting back against one bad ruling; it’s defending the fundamental separation of powers. This appeal systematically addresses every aspect of Boasberg’s flawed and blatantly partisan reasoning while simultaneously highlighting the urgent national security implications of these deportation flights. Of course, the left is not used to an administration that actually fights back against judicial activism. It expected Trump to roll over like so many Republicans before him. Instead, it’s getting a masterclass in constitutional governance.

Read more …

“Knee-deep in the mud..”

Trump’s present day nemesis judge fulfilled that role also during the Russiagate years. When Clinesmith falsified a FISA application.

Convicted FBI Lawyer Clinesmith Was Spared From Prison By Boasberg (JTN)

Convicted FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith — whom Judge James Boasberg gave a slap on the wrist for his crimes years before becoming a public foe of President Donald Trump’s deportation policies — was more deeply involved in the deeply flawed Crossfire Hurricane investigation than previously known. Clinesmith, who worked on both the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation and on the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, pleaded guilty to falsifying a document during the bureau’s efforts to renew FISA authority to wiretap Carter Page, who was an adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign. Newly-declassified details about Clinesmith’s involvement include a wide swath of information about his role in the case. He was a key go-to for former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok throughout the debunked collusion saga and a main driver in obtaining a FISA warrant against Page based on the infamous Steele dossier.

Clinesmith also granted his seal of approval on a document describing the FBI’s pretextual briefing of then-candidate Trump, was deeply involved in the investigation into retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, played a role in going after former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, and more. He also helped the FBI push its “Cross Wind” investigation, which Just the News can confirm related to the targeting of security expert Walid Phares, which resulted in no accusations of wrongdoing and no charges. Clinesmith confessed in August 2020 that he had manipulated a CIA email in 2017 to state that Carter Page was “not a source” for the CIA when that agency had actually told the bureau on multiple occasions that Page was in fact an “operational contact” for the CIA.

Boasberg, the federal judge who is blocking Trump’s efforts to deport Venezuelan gang members, also played a key and controversial role in the aftermath of the Trump-Russia collusion saga as the leader of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The judge, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by then-President Barack Obama in 2011, is currently engaged in an all-out legal battle with the Trump Justice Department. But in his role as the head of the FISA Court he made a number of divisive decisions, including a slap on the wrist for a member of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team, the appointment of officials who had defended the FBI’s actions during the Russiagate saga, the renewal of the FBI’s FISA powers, and more. Boasberg ruled this week that “probable cause exists” to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt after they violated his orders by continuing deportation flights. But his ruling follows the Supreme Court holding that Boasberg’s court was in an improper venue for the case altogether.

Boasberg, in his role as a federal judge, denied the Justice Department’s efforts to seek up to six months behind bars for Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty in Special Counsel John Durham’s Trump-Russia investigation — instead giving Clinesmith a year of probation, 400 hours of community service, and no fine. Durham argued that Clinesmith’s “deceptive conduct” related to the FISA application fabrication “was antithetical to the duty of candor and eroded the FISA’s confidence in the accuracy of all previous FISA applications worked on by the defendant,” and said his deception “fueled public distrust of the FBI and of the entire FISA program itself.” But Boasberg seemed to defend Clinesmith’s deceptive FISA-related actions during his January 2021 sentencing.

“Mr. Clinesmith likely believed that what he said was true,” Boasberg wrote, adding, “I do not believe he was attempting to achieve an end he knew was wrong.” The judge claimed that “it is not clear to me that the fourth FISA warrant would not have been signed but for this error. … Even if Mr. Clinesmith had been accurate about Mr. Page’s relationship with the other government agency, the warrant may well have been signed and the surveillance authorized.” Durham had argued that Clinesmith’s deception “fueled public distrust of the FBI and of the entire FISA program itself.” Anthony Scarpelli, then a top prosecutor on Durham’s team, also argued that “the defendant’s criminal conduct tarnished the integrity of the FISA program” and that “the resulting harm is immeasurable.”

Clinesmith told the court that “I am deeply remorseful for any effect my actions may have had” on the FISA process even as he claimed that “I never intended to mislead my colleagues about the status of Dr. Page.” But Boasberg lamented that Clinesmith had been “abused” and “vilified” on a “national scale” when the judge handed down his sentence, though he did acknowledge that the FISA court’s reputation “has suffered” from the ex-FBI attorney’s actions. DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz in 2019 found huge flaws with the FBI’s Russia collusion investigation, finding at least 17 “significant errors and omissions” related to the FISA warrants against former Trump campaign associate Carter Page. He also criticized the “central and essential” role of British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s debunked dossier in the FBI’s politicized FISA surveillance. Clinesmith reportedly circulated the dossier to other law enforcement staff.

FBI notes of a January 2017 interview with Steele source Igor Danchenko showed he told the bureau he “did not know the origins” of some of Steele’s claims and “did not recall” other dossier information. Danchenko also noted much of what he gave to Steele was “word of mouth and hearsay,” some of which stemmed from a “conversation that [he] had with friends over beers,” and the most salacious allegations may have been made in “jest.” The special counsel assessed that “the FBI ignored the fact that at no time before, during, or after Crossfire Hurricane were investigators able to corroborate a single substantive allegation in the Steele dossier reporting.” The new revelations about Clinesmith come partly through further declassified text messages sent by Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and others involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Read more …

“We keep watching….”

REPORT: President Trump Opposed Israeli Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites (CTH)

The report comes as a result of leaks to the New York Times. Which, given the nature of the subject matter and administration officials involved, indicates the sourcing is from the domestic IC side of things. Specifically, the greatest likelihood is from someone in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) talking to media. Keep that in mind. According to leaked information to the New York Times, President Trump did not agree with an Israeli proposal to launch military strikes against Iran. According to the narrative as advanced, President Trump, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were in agreement to attempt diplomatic solutions instead of bombing Iran. Israel could not conduct the attack without U.S. support, which President Trump decided not to give. Instead, Trump wanted a more forceful push toward engagement and diplomacy with Iran surrounding the ongoing contentious issue of nuclear development.

NEW YORK TIMES – “Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions. Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically. The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

Israeli officials had recently developed plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites in May. They were prepared to carry them out, and at times were optimistic that the United States would sign off. The goal of the proposals, according to officials briefed on them, was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more. Almost all of the plans would have required U.S. help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself. For now, Mr. Trump has chosen diplomacy over military action.”

This is where we need to insert the element that all media generally refuse to associate, Russia.” Iran has reengaged with officials from President Trump’s administration following a letter Trump wrote to the leadership in Iran. President Trump wants Mideast peace; he also wants to avoid the issue of Iran having a nuclear weapon. President Trump views military action as the last possible resort for failed diplomatic and geopolitical efforts. Israel wants to attack Iran. President Trump wants to support Israel but doesn’t want expanded military conflict that pulls the USA into more Mideast war. As we see in the continued issues within Ukraine, the CIA supports expanded conflict in both Ukraine and Iran. Israel and the CIA are in alignment. Hence, in our ongoing restaurant analogy, the CIA is the kitchen, and Israel has a table there. Russian President Vladimir Putin could be an influential geopolitical partner with President Trump, if Trump can get the issues of Ukraine and Russia solved and then pivot to Iran.

Unfortunately, the CIA does not want the issues within Ukraine solved, doesn’t want Trump and Putin coordinating and certainly doesn’t want Trump and Putin to work out a new strategic global map that does not contain useful conflict. Again, Israel and the CIA are in alignment. If President Trump builds a new bridge to Putin the bypass will significantly hurt traffic around the restaurant. The congressional zoning commission (House) is sympathetic to the long-term contract held by the chef, and the Israeli chamber of commerce are paying the county commissioners (senators) ‘indulgency fees’ to maintain the current ingress and egress. With the January change in shingle, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now the maître d at the front of the house. Secretary Rubio is not using the menu options created by the kitchen team.

The kitchen is not happy (drones into Moscow). DNI Gabbard in place as the IC hostess, is trying to keep the restaurant operation seamless so the customers generally don’t notice. Unfortunately, the kitchen isn’t soundproof, and we can hear plates crashing (NYT leaks). Around the neighborhood, the locals are worried the kitchen staff might start spitting in their food if they are seen enjoying the new service and menu options. A few of the regulars have told the maître d and hostess about the rumors. The issue is being discussed as part of a pre-planned remodel. The interior architect (Trump) and interior designer (Musk) are proposing to remove the walls so the customers can see the kitchen operation as part of a new and modern decor, style and ambiance [transparency]. However, the guys who eat in the kitchen aren’t going to be happy if they are exposed to the riffraff and forced to eat at ordinary tables.

We keep watching….

Read more …

“Pam Bondi: Every American should be thanking Trump tonight..”

“..it was a stealth DOJ Lawfare operative who purposefully wrote in a court filing that Garcia’s deportation was a “mistake.”

Pam Bondi Outlines Timeline and History of MS13 Illegal Alien (CTH)

Not since the Sandra Fluke election operation have the intel democrats coordinated so heavily with their media allies to organize support for a random person within the political/social narrative space, as they have with Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Apparently, the controlled U.S. media and their leftist politicians in office are choosing to use Garcia as a 2026 midterm election cry, similar to 2020’s George Floyd. The professional democrat party, their social media warriors/foot soldiers and the aligned propaganda media are all-in to use Kilmar Abrego Garcia as the face of their politics.

Attempting to counter the false narratives that surround the deportation of Garcia, Attorney General Pam Bondi makes her 77th appearance on Fox News to push back. Sean Hannity provides the Fox venue du jour. The responsibility is accurately applied to Bondi’s effort, considering it was a stealth DOJ Lawfare operative who purposefully wrote in a court filing that Garcia’s deportation was a “mistake.” The failure of Main Justice to catch the Lawfare operation within their ranks, has triggered these media events.

Read more …

“Maine Democrats have doubled down on their far-left agenda, and now our students and families stand poised to lose hundreds of millions in federal funding..”

Maine claims that keeping guys out of girls’ private rooms is “politically motivated”. Huh?

Bondi Announces Lawsuit Against Maine Over Boys in Girls’ Sports (ET)

The Department of Justice is seeking a federal court injunction requiring Pine Tree State schools to immediately stop transgender boys from competing in girls’ sports and return all athletic records and titles to their rightful female owners. The federal agency will also consider retroactively pulling funding from school districts that have not complied with Title IX regulations in the past, Attorney General Pam Bondi said during an April 16 news conference in Washington. “Pretty basic stuff,” she said. “This is about women’s sports. This is also about young women’s personal safety.” Bondi was flanked by Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Maine Assemblywoman Laurel Libby, who was censured by her state’s Democrat-led state legislature for posting photos and the identity of a male transgender athlete from Greely High School who won an indoor track state pole vaulting title this year.

Maine high school athletes who competed against transgender males also appeared on stage, along with Riley Gaines, a former NCAA swimmer who brought this debate to the national stage after losing the championship to a transgender male who had competed in the men’s division until his senior year. Bondi said a Maine transgender male also won a cross-country state title last fall in the girls’ division and placed at state-level skiing competitions this past winter. “That took away a spot from young women in women’s sports,” Bondi said. “Shame on him.” Bondi did not disclose where this federal lawsuit was filed. In a separate court case related to the same debate, a judge ordered the federal government to unfreeze Department of Agriculture funding to schools.

President Donald Trump previously issued executive orders clarifying Title IX and prohibiting males from competing in women’s sports. The NCAA has already complied, and Republican House members are working on a bill to codify that regulation. Maine’s attorney general has already informed Bondi that his state has no intention of complying with the order. School district superintendents told their communities that until directed otherwise, they are expected to comply with state laws that are contrary to Trump’s executive order. Trump publicly sparred with Maine Gov. Janet Mills at a governor’s workshop on Capitol Hill in February, warning her that he would pull funding if she continued to defy his executive order. At the state level, the Greely High School community has shown public support for all transgender athletes, including their state champion pole vaulter, criticizing Trump and the NCAA for its compliance. But Libby has also received plenty of support via her social media presence and continues to state that most Mainers do not support men competing as women in their state.

“Maine Democrats have doubled down on their far-left agenda, and now our students and families stand poised to lose hundreds of millions in federal funding,” Libby said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times. “Their radical gender ideology is endangering the continued existence of women’s sports and penalizing Maine students against the will of Maine citizens.” Mills issued a statement after Bondi’s news conference, saying that Trump and the Department of Justice’s actions are politically motivated. “As I have said previously, this is not just about who can compete on the athletic field, this is about whether a President can force compliance with his will, without regard for the rule of law that governs our nation. I believe he cannot,” the governor said.

Read more …

They would simply rename a office and say they shut it down.

Rubio Shuts Down Censorship Program Biden Admin Claimed was Ended (Turley)

For years, I have written about the Global Engagement Center (GEC) in columns and my book, The Indispensable Right. It was one of the hubs of the censorship network under the Biden Administration, which claimed it was shut down after Congress cut off funding. However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio just announced that he has terminated the office, which was operating under a different name (a familiar tactic by the anti-free speech movement). Secretary Rubio announced the closure of the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference office, which was previously known as the Global Engagement Center (GEC): “Over the last decade, Americans have been slandered, fired, charged, and even jailed for simply voicing their opinions. That ends today…

When Republicans in Congress sunset GEC’s funding at the end of last year, the Biden State Department slapped on a new name. The GEC became the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R-FIMI) office, with the same roster of employees. With this new name, they hoped to survive the transition to the new administration. Today, we are putting that to an end. Whatever name it goes by, GEC is dead. It will not return.” Bravo, Mr. Secretary, Bravo. We previously saw this dishonest practice in the Biden Administration when they claimed to shut down a censorship office only to shift work to other offices.

As we celebrated the demise of the infamous Disinformation Governing Board, the Biden administration never disclosed a larger censorship effort. That includes a recently disclosed back channel to Twitter where dozens of FBI agents tagged citizens for censorship. I have testified on that evidence of evasion and censorship. The new move will remove 50 full-time staff positions at the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference office. Rubio discussed his decision in an op-ed for The Federalist. The GEC was part of the Election Integrity Partnership, which we have also discussed as a consortium of nonprofits, social media platforms, and government agencies that were key to the censorship system.

The Biden Administration created censorship offices throughout the government while sending massive amounts of federal funding to groups and universities to help target individuals and groups.Rooting out these offices and grants will take a prolonged effort, but great progress has already occurred under the Trump Administration. Of course, this will add to the ranks of censorious Ronins looking for new sponsors. Many will find homes in academia and in Europe. Yet, there is reason to take heart even as we fight to regain the ground lost under Biden. As Winston Churchill said in 1942, “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Read more …

A Chihuahua rules the waves…

A Chihuahua That Thinks It’s A Lion: The Decline of Britain (Bordachev)

There are only two countries in the world that have exercised full autonomy over major political decisions for more than 500 years: Russia and Britain. No others come close. That alone makes Moscow and London natural rivals. But now, we can say with confidence that our historical adversary is no longer what it once was. Britain is losing its foreign policy clout and has been reduced to what we might call “Singapore on the Atlantic”: an island trading power, out of sync with the broader trajectory of world affairs. The fall from global relevance is not without irony. For centuries, Britain caused nothing but harm to the international system. It played France and Germany off one another, betrayed its own allies in Eastern Europe, and exploited its colonies to exhaustion. Even within the European Union, from 1972 until Brexit in 2020, the UK worked tirelessly to undermine the project of integration – first from within, and now from without, with backing from Washington.

Today, the British foreign policy establishment still attempts to sabotage European cohesion, acting as an American proxy. The late historian Edward Carr once mocked the British worldview with a fictional headline: “Fog in Channel – Continent Cut Off.” This egoism, common to island nations, is especially pronounced in Britain, which has always existed beside continental civilization. It borrowed freely from Europe’s culture and political ideas, yet always feared them. That fear was not unfounded. Britain has long understood that true unification of Europe – especially involving Germany and Russia – would leave it sidelined. Thus, the primary goal of British policy has always been to prevent cooperation between the major continental powers. Even now, no country is more eager than Britain to see the militarization of Germany. The idea of a stable Russia-Germany alliance has always been a nightmare scenario for London.

Whenever peace between Moscow and Berlin looked possible, Britain would intervene to sabotage it. The British approach to international relations mirrors its domestic political thought: atomized, competitive, distrustful of solidarity. While continental Europe produced theories of political community and mutual obligation, Britain gave the world Thomas Hobbes and his “Leviathan,” a grim vision of life without justice between the state and its citizens. That same combative logic extends to foreign policy. Britain doesn’t cooperate; it divides. It has always preferred enmity among others over engagement with them. But the tools of that strategy are disappearing. Britain today is a power in steep decline, reduced to shouting from the sidelines. Its internal political life is a carousel of increasingly unqualified prime ministers. This is not simply a result of difficult times. It reflects a deeper problem: the absence of serious political leadership in London.

Even the United States, Britain’s closest ally, is now a threat to its autonomy. The Anglosphere no longer needs two powers that speak English and operate under the same oligarchic political order. For a time, Britain found comfort in the Biden administration, which tolerated its role as transatlantic intermediary. London leveraged its anti-Russian stance to stay relevant and inserted itself into US-EU relations. But that space is narrowing. Today’s American leaders are uninterested in mediators. During a recent trip to Washington, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer could barely answer direct questions on foreign policy. His deference reflected a new reality: even the illusion of independence is fading. Meanwhile, France’s Emmanuel Macron, for all his posturing, at least leads a country that actually controls its nuclear arsenal.

Britain claims to have authority over its nuclear submarines, but many doubt it. In ten years, experts believe it may lose even the technical capacity to manage its nuclear weapons without US support. At that point, London will face a choice: full subservience to Washington or exposure to EU pressures, especially from France. Recent talk in London of sending “European peacekeepers” to Ukraine is a case in point. Despite the unrealistic nature of such proposals, British and French officials spent weeks debating operational details. Some reports suggest the plan stalled due to lack of funds. The real motive was likely to project relevance and show the world that Britain still has a role to play. But neither the media spin nor the political theater can change the facts. Britain’s global standing has diminished. It is no longer capable of independent action and has little influence even as a junior partner. Its leaders are consumed by domestic dysfunction and foreign policy fantasy.

In practical terms, Britain remains dangerous to Russia in two ways. First, by supplying weapons and mercenaries to Ukraine, it increases our costs and casualties. Second, in a moment of desperation, it might try to manufacture a small nuclear crisis. If that happens, one hopes the Americans would take the necessary steps to neutralize the threat – even if that means sinking a British submarine.There is nothing positive for Russia, or the world, in the continued existence of Britain as a foreign policy actor. Its legacy is one of division, sabotage, and imperial plunder. Now, it lives off the crumbs of a bygone empire, barking from the Atlantic like a chihuahua with memories of being a lion. The world moves on. Britain does not.

Read more …

Trump will have tariffs for that.

China Replacing US Oil With Canadian – Bloomberg (RT)

China has been importing record amounts of crude oil from Canada and drastically reducing supplies from the US in light of the trade war with Washington, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday. Washington and Beijing have implemented a series of reciprocal tariff hikes over the past two months in light of which the latter has slashed purchases of US oil by roughly 90%, according to the outlet. China previously indicated that it would not implement more tariff hikes against US goods but would rather employ alternative ways to retaliate. Chinese crude imports from a port near Vancouver on Canada’s Pacific coast soared to a record 7.3 million barrels in March and may exceed the figure this month, Bloomberg reported, citing data from London-based global oil and gas cargo tracking firm Vortexa Ltd.

Chinese imports of US oil, meanwhile, have fallen to 3 million barrels per month from a peak of 29 million last June, it added. China’s direct imports of Canadian crude oil had historically been minimal, primarily due to infrastructure constraints. Chinese refineries have mainly sourced crude from the Middle East and Russia. Roughly 1.7% of China’s total crude imports came from the US last year, according to Chinese customs data, down from 2.5% in 2023. Nearly all of Canada’s oil is shipped to the US to be processed there or re-exported to Asia. However, the completion last May of the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, which takes crude to Canada’s Pacific coast, provided the country with an alternative route to export more volumes directly, primarily to Asia, thus reducing its reliance on the US.

“Given the trade war, it’s unlikely for China to import more US oil,” Bloomberg quoted Wenran Jiang, president of the Canada-China Energy & Environment Forum, as saying. “They are not going to bank on Russian alone or Middle Eastern alone. Anything from Canada will be welcome news.” China accounted for roughly 5% of US crude oil exports last year, according to ship-tracking data from Kpler. Russia remains China’s largest supplier of crude oil. Russian shipments to China reached the highest level on record in 2024. The increase in recent years is largely attributable to the discounts being offered on Russian crude. China’s imports of oil from Saudi Arabia, its second-largest supplier, declined by 9% year-on-year in 2024.

Read more …

EU will buy US LNG. Lots of it.

Trump Tariffs Could Cost EU $1.25 Trillion (RT)

A trade war with the US could cost the EU up to €1.1 trillion ($1.25 trillion) over the next four years if Donald Trump proceeds with proposed tariffs, according to a study by the German Economic Institute (IW). Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced a sweeping 20% tariff on all EU goods and a 25% tariff on all car imports in a bid to eliminate what Washington sees as a large trade deficit with the bloc. Brussels was set to introduce 25% retaliatory tariffs on US imports before Trump announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs to allow for negotiations. If an agreement is not reached and US tariffs are imposed, the EU’s cumulative costs are estimated to range between €780 billion ($886.5 billion) and €1.1 trillion ($1.25 trillion) from 2025 to 2028, depending on the scenario, the study released on Thursday said.

The institute also projects that Germany’s GDP could slump by 1.2% annually during the same period under tariffs. If trading partners respond with similar measures, the costs for Berlin could rise to 1.6%, according to the report. Germany’s economy, already facing challenges, is expected to grow by only 0.1% in 2025 after two consecutive years of contraction. The IW forecasts a total economic output loss of €180 billion (around $205 billion) by 2028 for Germany, primarily due to export losses and declining investments. The US was Germany’s largest trading partner in 2024, with bilateral trade totaling €253 billion ($287.5 billion). A trade conflict could significantly impact key sectors, including automotive and pharmaceuticals, experts have warned.

The IW also pointed out that although the tariffs have been suspended for 90 days, uncertainty remains high, hitting global investment planning.European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier proposed a “zero-for-zero” tariff agreement to eliminate duties on industrial goods between the EU and the US. However, Trump rejected the offer, stating it was insufficient and demanded that the EU commit to purchasing $350 billion worth of American energy to receive tariff relief. Trump has criticized the EU’s trade practices, asserting that the bloc is “very bad to us” and highlighting the US trade deficit as justification for his stance. Officials from Washington and Brussels met for trade talks earlier this week, but made little headway in resolving their differences. US officials signaled that most tariffs on EU goods are likely to remain in place, according to Bloomberg.

Read more …

“The current iteration of traditional German the-Russians-are-coming..”

German Anti-Russia Propaganda Is Reaching Nazi-era Levels (Amar)

Like people almost everywhere in NATO-EU Europe, Germans are currently being subjected to a relentless barrage of shameless, often astonishingly crude propaganda. That’s because their political elites and mainstream media are desperately trying to prepare them for war against Russia. And this time, not by proxy, that is, by way of a devastated Ukraine and dead Ukrainians, but directly. As a former, very evil but in his prime all-too-popular German master of mass manipulation – who also happened to love war with Russia more than was good for him (or Germany) – explained a century ago, effective propaganda keeps the world very, very simple. Or, to add a little detail, propaganda’s sometimes literally stunning success is built on two primitive yet powerful – and very old – tricks: the broken-record principle and the litany effect.

Their meaning, too, is elementary: In essence, if your image of reality is delusional, you don’t have sound arguments, and your case is absurd, do not despair. Instead, ceaselessly drum in a few very basic and bogus ideas until the audience is dizzy with repetition (the broken-record principle), while also eliciting frequent consent from it (the litany effect). In short: Keep shouting the same nonsense at them and make them bleat back “yes” regularly. You know, like a ritual, really. In the case of the manufacturing of the current iteration of traditional German the-Russians-are-coming hysteria as well, it is easy to identify its handful of specious, daft, and childishly simplistic key motifs: Russia and Russia alone is to blame for the war in Ukraine; Russia intends to attack Europe (if not the world) – and soon; and Russia is incredibly devious and scheming, so you cannot find a reasonable compromise with it.

Yet what about the nuts and bolts of this propaganda campaign? Even a simple story needs detail, and, if told and retold almost without letup, that detail at least needs to vary: Same old story but different flavor. That’s where things get tricky. For one thing, if you pick the wrong flavor, your propaganda may start looking as silly as it actually is. A current example in Germany – as well as the EU parliament – would be the recent hysteria over the global hit Sigma Boy from Russia. Its brilliantly catchy tune is a piece of art, like it or not. But its lyrics are about as profound as a margarine commercial.

Yet that won’t stop Germany’s radical-Centrist elite from exploring the song’s ominous depths as a weapon of nefarious Russian cultural warfare. Because Sigma Boy, one EU parliamentarian from Hamburg has noticed – with a little help from Ukraine – is really “a viral Russian trope used on social media that communicates patriarchal and pro-Russian worldviews” as well as “only one example of Russian infiltration of popular discourse through social media.” Also, you see, Sigma Boy is really just code for – scary sound effect – PUTIN!

Read more …

Google is huge, it has many branches and companies, spends a fortune. Still, 77.4% of its revenue came from online ads in 2023. Break it up fast. It’s a threat to a million small companies.

Court Rules Google Illegally Holds “Monopoly Power” In Online Ad Tech (ZH)

A U.S. federal court ruled that Google had illegally monopolized key digital advertising markets, including publisher ad servers, ad exchanges, and advertiser ad networks. This ruling could deal a major blow to Google’s core business pillar: advertising revenue (advertising accounted for about 77.4% of Google’s total revenue in 2023). U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema found on Thursday morning that Google had violated antitrust law by “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market.”

Here are the key findings in the landmark antitrust case (U.S. v. Google, 23-cv-00108, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria):
Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in:
• The open-web display publisher ad server market, and
• The open-web display ad exchange market Google also violated Sections 1 and 2 by unlawfully tying its publisher ad server (DoubleClick for Publishers/DFP) to its ad exchange (AdX). The court did not find that

Google held monopoly power in the third alleged market: advertiser ad networks.
Legal and Procedural Notes:
• The DOJ and 17 states originally brought the suit, accusing Google of monopolizing three key ad tech markets.
• Google had earlier tried to dismiss the case and transfer it to New York but failed.
• The court conducted a three-week bench trial and reviewed extensive expert testimony and evidence.

This case is one of several antitrust actions pending against Google. In a separate lawsuit, the Justice Department seeks to force Alphabet to divest its Chrome browser following a landmark ruling that found the company had monopolized the online search market. “Google will be drastically reshaped by court decrees in the next year or two,” The Information said, adding, “Google will likely be forced, as a result of today’s decision, to dismantle much of its ad tech business which dominates both how advertisers buy ads on independent websites, and how web publishers sell their ad space.”

Here are the next steps for Google, and it appears the court will be deciding on potential remedies:
• Google was found liable on Counts I, II, and IV, violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Count III was dismissed.
• The court will set a schedule for briefing and hearings to determine remedies, potentially including divestiture of DFP and AdX, injunctions against anticompetitive practices, and other measures to restore competition.
• The ruling highlights Google’s decade-long strategy of tying products and imposing exclusionary policies to maintain dominance in digital advertising, harming publishers, competition, and consumers.

Market response: Alphabet shares fell as much as 3.2% after the ruling. Competitor The Trade Desk’s stock jumped nearly 8%, reflecting investor optimism about improved competition in the ad tech space.

Read more …

He put the whistleblowers in charge.

Trump to Make an Epic Move at the IRS (Margolis)

Tax Day was Tuesday, and it goes without saying that we’d all love to see the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disappear into the dustbin of history. But just as it is certain that we’re all going to die, we’re going to have to pay taxes. There have been some welcome changes at the IRS. As PJ Media previously reported, the IRS is now sharing illegal aliens’ tax information with ICE to help facilitate deportations. Trump has been pushing to turn every federal agency into an effective tool for catching and deporting illegal immigrants. And wouldn’t you know it, acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krause couldn’t handle doing the right thing and resigned. And guess who’s likely to take her place? Gary Shapley, the IRS whistleblower who blew the lid off the Hunter Biden tax probe. He testified under oath that he faced retaliation simply for doing his job and cooperating with congressional investigators looking into the shady business dealings of the president’s son.

Now, according to the Associated Press, Shapley is expected to be promoted to acting commissioner of the IRS. Shapley and fellow IRS investigator Joseph Ziegler were sidelined from the Hunter Biden probe in December 2022 after raising serious concerns with their superiors. According to their testimony, the Justice Department under then-U.S. Attorney David Weiss repeatedly “slow-walked investigative steps” and stalled enforcement actions in the critical months leading up to the 2020 election. The saga over Hunter Biden’s taxes ended when Joe Biden gave Hunter a blanket pardon for any and all crimes he may have committed for a nearly ten-year period. Hunter had been facing trial in California for failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes but abruptly agreed to plead guilty just as jury selection was about to begin.

Despite that unfortunate ending to the story, the promotion of Shapley is welcome news. It’s a classic Trump-style move — putting truth-tellers in positions of power and pushing out the bureaucrats who’ve been protecting the swamp. In March, Shapley was promoted to Deputy Chief of IRS Criminal Investigations, and another IRS investigator who testified about Biden’s taxes, Joseph Ziegler, was assigned to the Treasury Secretary’s office as a senior adviser for IRS reform. Now, the tax collection agency is planning to name Shapley to one of the highest-ranking roles at the agency — in an interim role — as former Missouri congressman Billy Long awaits a confirmation hearing to lead the agency permanently, the people say. They were not authorized to speak publicly about the plan.

President Donald Trump nominated Long, who worked as an auctioneer before serving six terms in the House of Representatives, to serve as the next commissioner of the IRS. “Gary is a long-tenured civil servant who has dedicated the last 15 years of his professional life to the IRS,” a Treasury spokesperson told the Associated Press. “Gary has proven his honesty and devotion to enforcing the law without fear or favor, even at great cost to his own career. He’ll be a great asset to the IRS as we rethink and reform this crucial organization.” Shapley may only serve temporarily, but you can’t ignore the symbolism behind the move.

Read more …

“The era of global boiling has arrived!”

Climate Myths (John Stossel)

I guess United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres didn’t think his hyping global warming risks brought him enough attention, so now he says, “The era of global boiling has arrived!” Global boiling? Give me a break. Yes, the climate is warming. We can deal with that. What annoys me is politicians, activists and media pushing hysterical myths.

Myth 1: The Arctic will soon be ice-free. It “could already be ice-free by the summer of 2030!” shrieks a DW report. “‘Doomsday Glacier’ is melting faster than scientists thought,” adds the BBC. “Earth’s biggest cities are at risk!” Nonsense. “It’s not happening at nearly the catastrophic pace that they claim,” says Heartland Institute fellow Linnea Lueken in my new video. But the media show dramatic images of melting and missing ice. “No ice! There’s all these walruses laying out on a stony beach. … It’s because it’s the summertime! In the winter, it all comes right back!”

As far as ice disappearing in winter, too, “Compared to the amount of ice that’s in the Arctic,” says Lueken, it “is like a grain of sand … so minuscule compared to the amount of ice that’s there, it doesn’t even show up on a trend chart when you plot it.” But zealots push hysteria. In 2009, Al Gore, while collecting a Nobel prize, said there was “a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap … during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years!” In just five to seven years! Oh, no! Wait … seven years have passed. In fact, 16 years passed. The ice cap has plenty of ice, even in summer. Yet nobody calls him on it. “They absolutely should be calling him on it,” says Lueken.

Myth 2: Polar bears are going extinct. Polar bears look cute, so environmental groups use them in ads to sucker you into donating money. But Polar bear populations have increased! In the 1960s, 17,000-19,000 was the highest of three scientific estimates of polar bear population. Today, there are about 26,000 polar bears. Yet the Environmental Defense Fund collected almost a quarter-billion dollars from gullible donors running ads that say: “Your support can help Environmental Defense Fund save the polar bears!” The EDF hasn’t agreed to my interview requests. I understand why. I would call their advertising sleazy. “Absolutely,” agrees Lueken, “the data is right there. It’s not hard to find out that polar bears are fine.” OK, maybe polar bears aren’t going extinct, but we might starve!

That’s Myth 3. MSNBC shrieks, “Climate change could create a massive global food shortage.” President Barack Obama said, “Our changing climate is already making it more difficult to produce food!” “There is no claim less true.” sighs Lueken. “Food production has skyrocketed.” She’s right, and the data is there for everyone to see. Agriculture output sets record highs year after year. In fact, the extra carbon dioxide in greenhouse gasses probably increases food production. “We inject CO2 into greenhouses for a reason,” Lueken points out. “It helps to fertilize plants for faster and better growth.” As the climate has warmed, the world experienced the biggest drop in hunger and malnutrition ever.

Still, when food prices rise, media idiots still blame climate change. The New York Times claimed “devastation that climate change had wrought” caused a rise in coffee prices.But global coffee production has increased by 82% since the 1990s.The Times story focused on a brief decline in coffee production in Honduras. But since the ’90s, coffee production there rose more than 200%. “They never apologize,” I note. “They never say, ‘Oh, we got this wrong.'” “No,” replies Lueken. “Even if they did have a retraction, the damage is already done.” Alarmist media and environmental groups never apologize. When doom doesn’t happen, they just move on to the next scare. I’ll cover four more myths about climate change next week..

Read more …

 

 

 

 

IVM

 

 

Alarma

 

 

K2-18b

 

 

Cartoon

 

 

Egret

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Apr 172025
 


Piet Mondriaan Trafalgar Square 1939-43

 

What Is a Woman? The UK Supreme Court Knows the Answer (Margolis)
Trump Shot Down Israel’s Plan To Attack Iran – NYT (RT)
New York AG Letitia James Accused of Alleged Mortgage Fraud (Turley)
Judge to Trump Administration: I Feel Unfacilitated (Turley)
Judge Boasberg Floats ‘Criminal Contempt’ Against Trump Admin (ZH)
Scott Jennings Schools CNN Panel Over Gang Member’s Deportation (PJM)
OpenAI Planning To Take On Musk’s X (RT)
Trump Is Right to Hammer Environmental Lawfare (DS)
What Can We Expect from the Peace Negotiations? (Paul Craig Roberts)
‘Stop Blackmailing’ – China to US (RT)
US To Restrict China’s Access in Exchange for Fewer Tariffs on Allies (Sp.)
US To Tie Tariff Deals To China Curbs – WSJ (RT)
Dutch MPs Call For Ban On Amplified Islamic Calls To Prayer (RMX)
Belgium Eyes Welfare Cuts To Meet NATO Target (RT)
Trump Confronts Economic and Geopolitical Reality (Ring)

 

 


Longhorn beetle’s face.

 

 

Genetics

Hero

AI

CCP

Macleod

Bukele taxes
https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/1912335542806802689

Flynn

Tucker Bernier

 

 

 

 

From a bit of an unexpected corner, but we’ll take it. A man’s no. 1 duty is to protect women, and that was not happening.

What Is a Woman? The UK Supreme Court Knows the Answer (Margolis)

The U.K. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling Wednesday that affirmed that the legal definition of “woman” refers specifically to those born biologically female, excluding biological men who “identify” as women from that category. The decision marks a major course correction after years of gender ideology sweeping Europe. The AP reports: “Several women’s groups that supported the appeal celebrated outside court and hailed it as a major victory in their effort to protect spaces designated for women. “Everyone knows what sex is and you can’t change it,” said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, which brought the case. “It’s common sense, basic common sense and the fact that we have been down a rabbit hole where people have tried to deny science and to deny reality and hopefully this will now see us back to, back to reality.” The ruling brings some clarity in the U.K. to a controversial issue that has roiled politics as women, parents, LGBTQ+ groups, lawmakers and athletes have debated gender identity rights.”

This wasn’t some razor-thin ruling divided on ideological grounds. The UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously, with all five judges in agreement: under the Equality Act, biological men can be lawfully excluded from women-only spaces and services even if they “identify” as women. That includes places like changing rooms, female-only shelters, swimming areas, and women-centered medical or counseling services. The court made it explicit that even a transgender person holding a certificate legally recognizing them as female does not qualify as a “woman” under equality law. As far as I know, none of the judges on the UK Supreme Court are biologists, yet they were able to answer the question “What is a woman?” when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn’t do the same when asked during her confirmation hearings.

The case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament stating there should be a 50% female representation on the boards of Scottish public bodies. Transgender women with gender recognition certificates were to be included in meeting the quota. “Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ … and, thus, the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” Hodge said. “It would create heterogeneous groupings.” Hannah Ford, an employment lawyer, said that while the judgment will provide clarity, it would be a setback for transgender rights and there would be “an uphill battle” to ensure workplaces are welcoming places for trans people. “This will be really wounding for the trans community,” Ford told Sky News. Groups that had challenged the Scottish government popped the cork on a bottle of champagne outside the court and sang, “women’s rights are human rights.”

The UK Supreme Court’s landmark ruling defining women based on biological sex isn’t just a victory for common sense; it’s a desperately needed course correction following years of radical gender ideology being legitimized worldwide. Thankfully, President Donald Trump has been fighting to bring this return to sanity to America, despite relentless opposition from radical leftists and activist judges who seem determined to deny basic biological reality.

Read more …

Looks like a narrow escape. Bombing Iran is sheer stupidity. A country that has always said it doesn’t want nukes, for religious reasons. Good to see multiple cabinet members get input.

Trump Shot Down Israel’s Plan To Attack Iran – NYT (RT)

US President Donald Trump has rejected Israel’s proposal to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, The New York Times reported on Wednesday evening, citing White House officials and others familiar with the matter. Trump reportedly chose instead to pursue a new deal with Tehran.According to the Times, Israel had drafted plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in early May, aiming to delay its ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more. After considering a combination of airstrikes and commando raids, the Jewish state reportedly proposed “an extensive bombing campaign” that would have lasted more than a week. Israeli officials had hoped that the US would not only greenlight the operation but also actively support it.

Trump, however, shot down the plan earlier this month, following a “rough consensus” in the White House. Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were among the top administration members who reportedly raised concerns that the strikes would “spark a wider conflict with Iran.” Iran and Israel exchanged strikes in April and October of last year, marking the most dramatic escalation between the regional arch-rivals.

Trump tore up the 2015 UN-backed agreement on Iran’s nuclear program during his first term in office. The president accused Tehran of secretly violating the deal and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by rolling back its own compliance with the accord and accelerating its enrichment of uranium. Last month, Trump threatened to bomb Iran “if they don’t make a deal,” to which the Islamic Republic vowed not to bow to pressure. Despite the belligerent rhetoric, the US and Iran held a first round of talks in Oman on Saturday. The negotiations took place in a “productive, calm and positive atmosphere,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1912670170977382901

Read more …

She deserves it.

New York AG Letitia James Accused of Alleged Mortgage Fraud (Turley)

“No matter how big, rich or powerful you think you are, no one is above the law.” Those words by New York state Attorney General Letitia James echoed throughout the media, lionizing her after her office secured a judgment against Donald Trump for false business practices, including misrepresentations on loan documents. They may echo even louder this week as James finds herself the subject of a criminal referral for committing alleged financial fraud to secure her own property loans. On April 14, William J. Pulte, Director of US Federal Housing (FHFA), sent a referral letter to the Justice Department detailing alleged false statements made in filings by James to secure housing loans. For an attorney general who just prosecuted Trump for everything short of ripping a label off a mattress, the irony is crushing.

The alleged false statements are particularly damning for someone who insisted that she had zero tolerance for such irregularities or errors in financial filings. Indeed, the greatest danger is that the Letitia James standard could be applied to Letitia James in guaranteeing that “no one is above the law.” The allegations against James run from the demonstrably false to the downright bizarre. In securing a loan for a home in Norfolk, Va., James is accused of claiming through her representative that the property would be her principal residence. As the referral notes, primary residences receive more advantageous rates. However, as “the sitting New York Attorney General of New York [James] is required by law to have her primary residence in the state of New York.” Notably, the Justice Department has prosecuted those who have committed this common fraud.

For example, in 2017, it charged a man in Puerto Rico with false statements on a reverse mortgage loan application in which he falsely claimed the property as his principal residence. It emphasized that “mortgage lenders provide capital so people can purchase homes, not enrich themselves illegally.” There are other such cases under 18 U.S.C. 1014 and related laws. James could claim that these representations were made by a third party acting on her behalf. However, that is precisely the argument that she repeatedly rejected in the Trump case, insisting that he was legally obligated to review all filings made in his name or that of his companies. James is also accused of misrepresenting a five-unit property in Brooklyn as a four-unit property “to receive better interest rates … and to receive mortgage assistance through [the Home Affordable Modification Program].”

The referral also includes a claim that James filed papers that listed herself and her father as a married couple. The referral notes that just last year, Baltimore’s State Attorney, Marilyn Mosby, was convicted by the Biden administration of filing a false mortgage application. Another case resulted in a guilty plea last week for fraudulent filings in a home loan. The timing for James could not be worse. The Trump civil case has languished on appeal for months with a long overdue opinion. The appellate argument did not go well for James in the case that resulted in a grotesque half-billion-dollar fine in a case where no one lost a dime. James accused Trump of inflating property value in filings, a common practice in the real estate field. It did not matter that the company warned banks to do their own evaluations. It did not matter that bank officials testified that they made money on the deal. Indeed, the “victim” wanted more business from Trump. None of that matters.

James not only demanded an even greater fine but wanted to foreclose on Trump properties after Trump was told to secure a ridiculous $455 million bond to simply secure appellate review. Throughout that case, James repeated her mantra that there would be no exceptions for the rich and powerful. She insisted that accuracy on such financial records is essential and must be rigorously enforced. Many of us objected that James was selectively targeting Trump after she ran for office on the pledge to nail him on some unspecified offense.

James insisted that this was not lawfare and that she would prosecute anyone guilty of false or misleading statements on financial filings. She is now allegedly that person. It is not clear what James’ defense will be to these allegations. However, she may cite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Thompson v. United States, which ruled in March that 18 U.S.C. § 1014 does not criminalize statements that are merely misleading but are not false. The problem is that, if proven, these statements are not misleading. They are false.

Read more …

Two separate judges are on the MS-13 case.

Judge to Trump Administration: I Feel Unfacilitated (Turley)

After the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, I wrote a column disagreeing with the media coverage that claimed that the Trump Administration was ordered to return Garcia to the United States from El Salvador. The Administration mistakingly sent Garcia to a foreign prison. However, the Court only ordered that the Administration “facilitate” such a return, a term it failed to define. Now, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis is indicating that she feels unfacilitated, but it is unclear how a court should address this curious writ of facilitation. After the ruling, many on the left claimed “Supreme Court in a unanimous decision: He has a legal right to be here, and you have to bring him back.” The Court actually warned that the district court could order the government to facilitate but not necessarily “to effectuate” the return.

“The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.”

So what does that mean? As I asked in the column, “what if the Trump Administration says that inquiries were made, but the matter has proven intractable or unresolvable? Crickets.” The Administration has made clear that it views the orders as meaning that, if El Salvador brings Garcia to its doorstep, it must open the door. The court clearly has a different interpretation. Judge Xinis said yesterday, “I’ve gotten nothing. I’ve gotten no real response, and no real legal justification for not answering,” she continued, adding that if the administration is not going to answer her questions “then justify why. That’s what we do in this house.” There is nothing worse than a feeling of being unfacilitated, but how does the court measure good faith facilitation? Garcia is an El Salvadorian citizen in an El Salvadorian prison. The refusal of El Salvador to send the accused MS-13 gang member back effectively ends the question on any return.

Many of us suspect that El Salvador would send back Garcia if asked, but how can a court measure the effort of an Administration in communications with a foreign country? Judge Xinis is suggesting that she will be holding someone in contempt. However, this is a discussion occurring at the highest level. Would a formal request be enough? Is Judge Xinis suggesting that the court can require punitive or coercive measures against a foreign country to facilitate a change in its position? The fact is that a unanimous decision of the Court is not hard when no one can say conclusively what the order means. If Judge Xinis is going to move ahead with new orders, it will find its way back to the Supreme Court.

The Court clearly (and correctly) held that Garcia deserves due process and that this removal was a mistake. As I have previously stated, the Administration should have brought him back for proper deportation. I still believe that. However, the Court also held that the President’s Article II authority over foreign policy has to weigh heavily in such questions. As the court goes down this road, it can quickly get bogged down in subjective judgments on what constitutes facilitation. That is the can kicked down the road by the Supreme Court and it is now likely to come rattling back to the justices.

Read more …

The de facto ruler of America.

Judge Boasberg Floats ‘Criminal Contempt’ Against Trump Admin (ZH)

US District Judge James Boasberg ruled Wednesday that “probable cause exists” to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for ignoring oral instructions to turn a plane full of alleged Venezuelan gang members around mid-flight, despite the US Supreme Court determining that Boasberg’s court was an improper venue for the case altogether – and vacating two of his temporary restraining orders related to the case. “The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg wrote in a “46-page rant” (as Julie Kelly puts it). “The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” Boasberg continues. “None of their responses has been satisfactory.” Oh, and if the DOJ won’t prosecute the Trump admin’s alleged contempt, “the Court will “appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.””

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1912553159269949783?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1912553159269949783%7Ctwgr%5Ea3688f29ee12125fd4b2930b336905f62a939345%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fpresident-jeb-boasberg-floats-criminal-contempt-against-trump-admin-over-deportations

That said, the Supreme Court is partially to blame here over their refusal to draw clear boundaries for District court judges… Which has created a complete shit-show…

Read more …

“There’s no version of this man’s life where he comes back.”

Scott Jennings Schools CNN Panel Over Gang Member’s Deportation (PJM)

CNN’s Scott Jennings was having none of the hand-wringing on Monday’s panel discussion over the Trump administration’s handling of the deportation of MS-13 gang member Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia — the latest cause célèbre of the radical left. While the liberals on the panel tiptoed around legal technicalities and rhetorical posturing, Jennings delivered a blunt reality check that left the rest of the table scrambling. Anchor Abby Phillip tried to tee up criticism of Trump by focusing on “the optics” of sending “Americans” to El Salvador — even though Abrego Garcia is an illegal immigrant. But Jennings wasn’t distracted. “Yes. He said they were studying the laws. I mean, there wasn’t any definitive statement,” he clarified, before cutting right to the core of the debate: “I think you guys need to understand, for the Trump administration, there’s no version of this man’s life that ends up with him living in the United States.”

Jennings laid out the Trump administration’s reasoning without flinching: “He’s an illegal alien from El Salvador who came to the country illegally, who has a deportation order, who, in their view and in the view of some immigration courts, has an affiliation with MS-13.” Phillip tried to interject by claiming that Garcia’s affiliation with MS-13 isn’t definitive because Abrego Garcia “strongly disputes in court.” Well, I guess that settles it, right? “I’m telling you that their view of it is that… it’s an El Salvador citizen who was sent back to El Salvador, who was in the country illegally,” Jennings reiterated. “According to some people in his long process… he has an existing deportation order, [and they] believe he has an affiliation with MS-13.” Then Jennings repeated his knockout point: “There’s no version of this man’s life where he comes back.”

As the panel continued to push the narrative of unjust exile, Jennings laid out the consequences if Abrego Garcia is returned. “If the president of El Salvador releases him and we do facilitate his return, when he lands in this country, one of two things will happen,” Jennings explained. “He’ll either be arrested… or sent to another country that I promise you you don’t want to go to. He’s not going to be allowed to come back and live in this country as though he is a U.S. citizen.” Harvard Law’s Jay Michaelson jumped in with the melodramatic accusation, “That’s literally the definition of tyranny, right?” Umm, no? What are they teaching at Harvard Law these days? Seriously.

Michaelson continued, “So, here’s what’s going to happen: We’re going to throw him in jail. No, there’s a thing called the rule of law and due process, which has not been followed in this case. And if I have a slightly optimistic take on this; I actually think this is going to come back to bite the Trump administration. Because what’s going to happen is the next time this goes up the court system, they have absolutely zero credibility to say, Don’t worry, you can file a habeas petition. You can get your person back.” But Jennings coolly reminded the panel, “They have the ability to deport people who have deportation orders.” He added that Garcia “got due process. He has a deportation order.”

Later, he dissected the legal victory Trump’s team got last week. “The reason the administration believes they got a big win at the Supreme Court is because the district court was trying to compel the executive on foreign affairs. The Supreme Court threw that out,” Jennings explained. “The courts have long recognized that they cannot compel the executive on foreign policy matters.” As for the politics? Jennings didn’t sugarcoat it. “What they also believe is that, politically, the American people want them to be as aggressive as possible… to solve a crisis that has festered for years,” he asserted. Then he drove the moral argument home with a chilling reminder: “We keep calling this guy ‘Maryland man’ in the press. Nobody seems to worry about the Maryland mother, Rachel Morin, who was murdered by someone that the previous administration let out of jail.”

Read more …

Social media without people. Just AI bots.

OpenAI Planning To Take On Musk’s X (RT)

OpenAI, a San Francisco-based company best known for ChatGPT, has reportedly been working on a new social media app similar to Elon Musk’s X. The early prototype features a feed centered on AI-generated images, according to sources familiar with the project cited by The Verge on Sunday. The experimental platform reportedly includes a social media feed and is being tested internally. CEO Sam Altman has also been seeking private feedback from individuals outside the company, the outlet reported. It remains unclear whether OpenAI intends to release the project as a separate app or integrate it into ChatGPT, which was the most downloaded app worldwide last month, with 46 million new downloads, according to Appfigures.

OpenAI’s potential social media network “would likely increase Altman’s already-bitter rivalry with Elon Musk,” The Verge writes. Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI but left the company in 2018. In February, Musk offered $97.4 billion to acquire OpenAI, but Altman rejected the offer, reportedly saying, “no thank you but we will buy twitter [now known as X] for $9.74 billion if you want,” according to The Verge. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, could also be in OpenAI’s sights. The report noted that Meta is planning to launch its own AI assistant app with a social media feed. Following reports that Meta is building a ChatGPT rival, Altman responded on X in February: “ok fine maybe we’ll do a social app.”

Having a social media platform would reportedly allow OpenAI to collect unique real-time user data to enhance its AI models, similar to how Meta and Musk’s xAI currently operate, according to The Verge. Musk has merged his AI company xAI with X. Grok is a chatbot developed by xAI. It has been integrated with X and pulls content from the platform to inform its responses. According to a source from another AI lab cited by the Verge, “The Grok integration with X has made everyone jealous,” particularly regarding its role in helping users create viral content. It is reportedly uncertain whether OpenAI’s social media prototype will be released publicly.

Read more …

“Making America Great Again” has to include energy dominance and eradicating the barriers to innovation and growth at all levels of government, including courtrooms.”

Trump Is Right to Hammer Environmental Lawfare (DS)

President Donald Trump’s critics are right about one thing: The first few months of his second term have been a reckoning. Starting with the federal government’s pursuit of law firms and organizations that committed lawfare against the president to hobble his political comeback, Trump has now supercharged executive authority to stop the flood of ideologically based lawsuits targeting America’s energy providers. In an executive order signed last week, Trump empowered Attorney General Pam Bondi to turn up the heat on local prosecutors and state attorneys general abusing the legal system with lawsuits against energy companies. He is right to do so. “Making America Great Again” has to include energy dominance and eradicating the barriers to innovation and growth at all levels of government, including courtrooms.

Trump has directed Bondi to “expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of state laws and continuation of civil actions” that threaten American energy dominance, including restrictive rules and civil actions against oil, natural gas, hydroelectricity, and nuclear energy projects. What Trump is specifically targeting here is the well-resourced cadre of state attorneys general and liability “lawfare” firms that have deployed creative legal strategies to try to extract money from companies by claiming they’ve committed “climate” crimes. This genre of lawsuit relies on the alleged violation of state nuisance or consumer deception laws, and litigators argue that the energy companies actively strove to mislead the public about their products’ impact on the climate.

A local lawsuit in North Carolina against Duke Energy, one of the largest nuclear energy utilities in the nation, provides the most baffling case. Officials in the small suburb town of Carrboro want the company to pay for the “climate-related harm” caused by its electricity generation, even though Duke Energy’s carbon-free nuclear energy fleet powers half the homes in North and South Carolina, and the region’s use of natural gas is one of the lowest per capita in the country. Climate lawfare has a direct impact on consumers who rely on affordable energy of all types by forcing these companies to beef up their legal departments rather than improving the delivery of their goods and services. The end result is higher prices for consumers who already live on tight budgets due to the rising cost of living in other areas of the economy.

Most, if not all, of these cases are filed in blue states and launched by attorneys on behalf of city governments such as Honolulu; Boulder, Colorado; and San Francisco. The states of Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, Maine, New York, and California each have their own lawsuits aimed at recouping the “costs” of climate change on local communities and enforcing “net-zero” energy policies. Net-zero policies seek to rapidly choke off fossil fuel use in order to reach zero carbon emissions by reducing them as well as removing them from the atmosphere and relying on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and sometimes, nuclear power. Oil companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP get hit hardest, but like in the case of Duke Energy in North Carolina, electricity utility companies get dragged into the mess as well.

But as far as messes go, it’s one carefully orchestrated by the climate litigation industry, armed with deep pockets and patience in its quest to pull the rug out from under Big Energy. That’s why Trump’s revamp of federalism to review many of these laws and statutes is not only legal but deeply necessary. Consumers who need affordable energy and who rely on continued innovation from the companies that power their lives should not have their standard of living cut by greedy environmental lawyers jamming up district courts where judges are ideologically inclined to their side. In March, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the deluge of Democrat state-led climate lawsuits, denying the request by red states to put a halt to the lawfare.

In their dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito made clear that the court was punting on a vital constitutional case “for policy reasons.” When the Supreme Court refuses to address the obvious abuse of our litigation system for energy providers and the consumers that rely on them, the intervention of the executive branch becomes a necessity. The most likely unconstitutional state statutes that enable these costly lawsuits should meet the wrath of a president willing to exercise some federal authority. Trump has answered that call, and at least on this specific issue, he’s proved that our government’s unique balancing act between state and federal power does make it possible to get important things done for Americans.

Read more …

PCR won’t give Putin a break. But Putin has a problem with dead Ukrainians: they’re Russia’s brothers.

What Can We Expect from the Peace Negotiations? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Are the peace negotiations leading anywhere we want to go, or are they leading nowhere, or to more conflict? If I had to bet, I would pick one of the last two choices. Most likely more conflict. It is a tendency of peace negotiations to go nowhere except to a ceasefire that is immediately broken. As for the Ukraine negotiations, the Russians are the only party to the limited cease fire in Ukraine that have kept the agreement. Putin’s reward is to be told by Trump to stop fighting and put Russia’s fate in Washington’s hands or there will be more sanctions. Negotiations tend to keep on continuing, because it is in the interest of the negotiating teams. It is their time of fame. They are in the limelight. They enjoy being important. An agreement would make them invisible again. It is their 15 minutes of fame that they stretch into months and years.

Consider how long peace negotiations have been going on between Israel and Palestine to no effect except the utter and total destruction of Palestine and its people. The same could happen to Russia as the Kremlin seems to consist of 19th century naive liberals. In my recent interview on Dialogue Works I wondered why Iran was negotiating when the solution is to invite inspectors in to see if there is any evidence of nuclear weapons production. I wondered why Putin was negotiating when his real responsibility to Russia is to win the conflict and dictate the peace terms. After all his sad costly experiences with negotiating with Washington, why does Putin desire yet another sad experience? As far as I can tell, I am the only person who has answered the question. Putin is trying to use the conflict to negotiate a Great Powers Agreement like Yalta. If he wins the war, as he should have done long ago, to his way of thinking he loses the chance for a new Yalta that naive Russian foreign affairs commentators are talking about.

My view differs from Putin’s. If he won the war, especially if he had done so right away, Russia would be recognized as a great power worthy of a Great Power Agreement. Instead, by preventing the Russian military from winning, Putin has convinced the West that Russia is not a formidable military force, and that its leadership is irresolute. Among the consequences, we have today the French and British considering sending their soldiers to fight against Russia in Ukraine. Only Putin’s irresolution could have convinced the British and French that they could take on Russia. We also have Baltic countries with small populations engaging in unresisted and unanswered aggression against Russia. Both Estonia and Finland have moved to use military force to capture and detain Russian oil tankers.

If you were the captain of a Russian oil tanker delivering oil to somewhere in Europe, you might already be wondering why your government is fueling the ability of its enemies to wage war against Russia. But when you are boarded by a two-bit country whose population is less than Moscow’s and the Kremlin does not intervene, what do you think about the world’s respect for your country? You must be heart-broken. Powerful Russia humiliated by Estonia! Putin does not think about these things. His focus is only on negotiation. He is wedded to it, firmly. He might even be a little crazed by it. It is all that is important. He won’t respond to humiliations because it might queer the all-important negotiations. So the smallest countries on earth can humiliate Russia at will.

This must affect the Russian population, unless they have been so corrupted by Western “culture” that they are no longer Russian. That is the case with many of the Russian intellectuals. If Russia can’t be a part of the West, they feel isolated and alone. Decades of Washington’s propaganda succeeded in diminishing the Russian in them. From the day that Putin, who had erroneously relied on negotiations, was forced by Washington to intervene in Donbas, Putin and his foreign minister have not ceased bleating how welcoming they would be of peace negotiations. Consequently, no one in Western governments thought, or think today, that the Kremlin has an ounce of resolve on the battlefield. This is the problem Putin caused himself.

Do you remember Prigozhin and the Wagner Group? The Wagner Group was the essentially private military force under the command of Yevgeny Prigozhin that Putin had to rely upon when he belatedly intervened in Ukraine. Having erroneously relied on the Minsk Agreement, which the West used to deceive Putin, Putin had no military force prepared to deal with the massive Ukrainian army Washington had trained and equipped. Prigozhin found Putin’s way of fighting a war problematical. He said his top echelon troops were being required to take casualties but were prohibited from fighting to win. The dissatisfaction of the troops with Putin’s strictures that prevented victory, led to a protest march on Moscow, which the jealous Russian General Staff misrepresented as a “rebellion.” Prigozhin was removed and later died in a mysterious airplane crash, and the Wagner Group was broken up, thereby depriving Russia of its hardest hitting military force. This is a huge sacrifice in behalf of a distant possible negotiated settlement.

Prigozhin wasn’t alone. The second most effective Russian force were the Muslim troops from Chechnya. Their leader also complained that his force had to take casualties but were prevented from winning. He asked publicly, why can’t we get this conflict over with? I think the answer is that Putin thinks a negotiated settlement possibly leading to a Great Power Agreement is more important than the reputation of Russian military arms and Russian and Ukrainian casualties. If Washington comes to my conclusion, the settlement imposed on Putin will look good on paper but will perpetuate American hegemony. I have said many times that Putin does not need a mutual security agreement with the West. He does not need a New Yalta. Russia needs a mutual security agreement with China and Iran. A mutual security agreement of these three powers would end all wars. The US, NATO, Israel cannot possibly confront these three countries militarily.

But there is no agreement. Why? Is it a lack of vision of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian leaders? Or is it distrust between them? Russia and Iran walked away from Syria, leaving the country to Israel, Washington, and Turkey. Why wouldn’t they walk away from one another? China, knows that if China wished, China could crush Taiwan, with or without US support to Taiwan, in a few hours. But Putin can’t defeat outclassed Ukraine in more than three years, longer than it took Stalin’s Red Army to destroy the powerful German Wehrmacht, driving the Germans out of thousands of miles of Russia, Eastern Europe, and arriving in the streets of Berlin in a shorter time than Putin has been fighting over a few kilometers in Donbas. China must wonder what sort of military help would Russia be?

My conclusion is, and I much regret it, it is not a conclusion I want, that Putin has so badly handled the Ukrainian situation, the pipeline, and all other matters with Washington that the only agreement that can be reached is Russia’s surrender. Putin has shown no will to fight, only to engage in fruitless negotiation. Putin rolls out all of Russia’s superior weapons systems, which clearly are superior to anything the West has. But no one in the West believes he would use them. Putin has failed to present himself and his country as entities that must be contended with on their terms. Consequently, Putin is dismissed by Trump as someone to be bossed around, and by militarily impotent Britain and France who are talking about sending their soldiers to Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Read more …

Blackmail? Is that what it is?

‘Stop Blackmailing’ – China to US (RT)

China has called on the US to “stop threatening and blackmailing,” if it wants to resolve the escalating trade dispute between the two countries through dialogue. Beijing has stressed that it will continue to protect its interests in the face of US pressure. The two countries have implemented a series of reciprocal tariff hikes over the past two months, with the US imposing a cumulative rate of 145% last week. On Tuesday, the White House warned that Chinese imports to the US could face tariffs as high as 245%, and claimed the ball is in China’s court. “If the United States really wants to solve the problem through dialogue and negotiation, it should give up the extreme pressure, stop threatening and blackmailing,” Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lin Jian told journalists on Wednesday.

The diplomat reiterated that the tariff war was initiated by the US and stated that China’s response was aimed at safeguarding its legitimate rights and interests. Beijing’s retaliation has included a hike to 125% on all American imports, a suspension of global shipments of rare-earth metals and magnets used in tech and military industries. In addition, Beijing ordered Chinese airlines to stop accepting Boeing jets and parts, according to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump previously suggested that the “proud” Chinese want to make a deal, they “just don’t know how quite to go about it.” The Chinese authorities have meanwhile insisted that “the door remains open” for negotiation with the US, but dialogue must be based on mutual respect. The Ministry of Commerce last week dismissed the multiple rounds of duties imposed by the US on China as “numbers game” with no practical meaning and vowed to “fight to the end.”

Read more …

The US wants to prevent China from using third countries to circumvent tarriffs.

US To Restrict China’s Access in Exchange for Fewer Tariffs on Allies (Sp.)

During negotiations with more than 70 countries, the US administration plans to secure commitments from trade partners to economically isolate China in exchange for lower tariffs imposed by the White House, The Wall Street Journal newspaper reported. The White House plans to convince countries to prohibit China from transporting goods through their territories, the report said on Tuesday, adding that Washington also wants to ban Chinese companies from locating in these countries in order to circumvent US tariffs, and prevent cheap Chinese industrial goods from entering their markets.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has become one of the key developers of this strategy, the report read. In his opinion, in the near future, such agreements can be reached primarily with Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea and India. On April 2, US President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on imports from various countries, establishing a baseline rate of 10%. The tariffs were intended to be adjusted based on the rates charged by those countries on US goods. However, on April 9, Trump declared a 90-day pause on tariffs for all countries except China and lowered the rate to 10% to facilitate negotiations.

Read more …

“The ball is in China’s court. China needs to make a deal with us. We don’t have to make a deal with them,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said..”

US To Tie Tariff Deals To China Curbs – WSJ (RT)

The US plans to use tariff negotiations to push trade partners to scale back economic ties with China, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing sources familiar with the talks. The strategy is reportedly aimed at securing commitments from countries hit by recent US tariff hikes to help isolate China’s economy and pressure Beijing to negotiate. US President Donald Trump announced new “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly 90 countries earlier this month, citing unfair trade practices. After global markets reacted by dropping sharply and several governments sought exemptions, he paused most of the tariffs for 90 days, reducing them to a baseline rate of 10%. However, the pause does not apply to China, whose exports to the US are now subject to tariffs of up to 145% amid an ongoing tit-for-tat trade war.

US officials aim to convince trade partners to accept permanent tariff cuts in exchange for curbing their economic engagement with China, according to the WSJ. Proposed commitments may vary by country, but could reportedly include stopping China from rerouting exports through third-party nations, banning Chinese firms from setting up operations locally to avoid US tariffs, and limiting imports of low-cost Chinese industrial goods. Sources said the measures are meant to undermine China’s economy and reduce its leverage ahead of potential negotiations between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The US has already raised the proposal in early discussions with some countries, sources claimed.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was reportedly one of the main architects of the plan. Sources claimed he presented the strategy to Trump during an April 6 meeting at Mar-a-Lago, arguing that obtaining concessions from partners could prevent China from evading tariffs and export controls. He previously named the UK, Australia, South Korea, India, and Japan as countries likely to finalize trade agreements with Washington in the near future.

The White House and Treasury Department declined to comment on the WSJ report. On Tuesday, Trump urged China to initiate negotiations to resolve the tariff dispute. “The ball is in China’s court. China needs to make a deal with us. We don’t have to make a deal with them,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, quoting a statement she claimed was dictated by the president. Beijing, however, has so far refused to back down. On Friday, China announced it would impose a 125% tariff on all US goods, reiterating it will “fight to the end” against Washington’s trade policy. Beijing also signaled this could be the last increase, noting that “at the current tariff level, there is no market acceptance for US goods exported to China,” while adding that other countermeasures are being considered.

Read more …

You grow up in Holland and you’re forced to hear the call to Muslim prayer 5x a day. Get real.

Dutch MPs Call For Ban On Amplified Islamic Calls To Prayer (RMX)

Two minor conservative parties in the Netherlands, the SGP and JA21, have tabled a private members’ bill aiming to ban amplified Islamic calls to prayer in residential areas, arguing that the practice is increasingly at odds with Dutch cultural norms. The proposed legislation, submitted by SGP MP André Flach and JA21 leader Joost Eerdmans, targets the growing use of loudspeakers in mosques to broadcast the adhan — the Islamic call to prayer — across neighborhoods. While amplified calls were rare until the 1990s, the MPs claim they are now heard in dozens of communities nationwide, “from Amsterdam to Alblasserdam.” “It doesn’t fit in with Dutch culture,” Flach said, as cited by De Telegraaf newspaper. He noted that current broadcasts loudly proclaim religious texts such as “Allah is the greatest” and “there is no other god but Allah” several times a day. He argued that when laws were changed in 1988 to allow amplified religious calls under the Public Manifestations Act, lawmakers did not anticipate how pervasive and loud such calls might become.

Eerdmans expressed equal concern over the trend, pointing to what he sees as a steady increase in Islamic practice seeping into the Dutch way of life. “Today, around 40 mosques play the adhan on Fridays, but with about 500 mosques in the Netherlands and that number growing, how many will there be in 10 years?” sIn some neighborhoods, “you really feel like you’re in Istanbul or Marrakesh,” he added. The MPs also cited a poll commissioned from researcher Maurice de Hond, which claims that nearly 80 percent of Dutch citizens view amplified calls to prayer as inconsistent with Dutch culture and find them bothersome. While the government had already signaled plans to tighten regulations on amplified prayer calls earlier this year, Flach and Eerdmans are pushing for a complete ban on sound amplification for such broadcasts.

“This is not about restricting freedom of religion,” Flach insisted. “People can still make the call to prayer, just without sound amplification. The current law simply lacks the word ‘unamplified’ — and we are adding it,” he said. In a statement, JA21 wrote, “More and more Dutch streets are drowned out by amplified Islamic calls to prayer. The public space belongs to everyone – the mosque does not have to rise above it. That is why JA21 and SGP are submitting a private members’ bill to ban the reinforced call.” The proposal follows earlier statements by Integration Secretary Jurgen Nobel, who in February pledged to review existing legislation to better manage noise disturbances from amplified religious expressions. Supporters argue that the measure would restore balance and respond to long-standing complaints from residents in affected areas. The bill will now move to parliamentary debate.

Read more …

Just to get to 2%. Then that becomes 5%. And then Ursula wants $800 billion on top of that.

Belgium Eyes Welfare Cuts To Meet NATO Target (RT)

Belgium is preparing to raise debt and cut welfare to meet NATO’s minimum military spending target, the EU country’s budget minister has said. Vincent Van Peteghem told the Financial Times on Wednesday that Brussels recently agreed to lift its 2025 military budget to 2% of GDP through a mix of temporary cash injections, creative accounting, and structural reforms. The planned hike in military spending could exacerbate the budget crisis as debt mounts. Recent government plans to cut social services have sparked protests, with over 100,000 people rallying in Brussels in February. Belgium had previously planned to meet the 2% target only by 2029. Military spending currently stands at around 1.31% of GDP, or roughly €8 billion ($8.5 billion), according to Defense Minister Theo Francken.

The shift comes amid pressure from Washington and ahead of a NATO summit in June, where members are expected to consider raising the spending target to above 3% of GDP. US President Donald Trump has urged the bloc members to increase military spending to 5%, warning that countries that fail to do so may no longer be guaranteed American protection. Higher spending on military budgets would take a toll on the EU’s welfare programs, Van Peteghem warned. Last month, the European Commission proposed exempting military budgets from fiscal rules and offering €150 billion in loans as part of its ‘ReArm Europe’ plan, which aims to mobilize up to €800 billion through debt and tax incentives for the bloc’s military-industrial complex.

Van Peteghem said Belgium would tap both options to fund additional military spending this year. To maintain the 2% level, the government plans to raise more debt and may privatize state-owned assets, the minister said. The remaining gap would be filled through spending cuts, including curbs on unemployment benefits, pension reforms, and tax changes. “But of course, we will need to do more,” Van Peteghem, who also serves as deputy prime minister, said. France has also announced plans to cut €5 billion from its budget, with some of the savings potentially redirected to military spending. Moscow has condemned the EU’s military buildup. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it “a matter of deep concern,” noting that it was aimed at Russia.

Read more …

“That would raise the annual federal interest payment on the national debt to $1.5 trillion. At what point does this become a crisis?”

Trump Confronts Economic and Geopolitical Reality (Ring)

By the time this is published, everything may have changed, and that is to be expected. Throughout his career, well before and since becoming a politician, Trump has explicitly stated that he does not think it is always a good strategy to be predictable. And while markets love predictability, sometimes markets, and the systems propping them up, need disruption. This is such a moment. Nobody should deny that the anxiety is genuine. An older friend of mine, well into his 70s, still working but ready to retire, is wondering how he and his wife will survive if their savings are wiped out. That’s true for all of us, but it begs the question: What if the painful restructuring we may be about to endure, and which may last for many years, is necessary to avoid an even worse fate? Trump’s abrupt escalation of import tariffs goes well beyond violating the principles of comparative advantage, but we can start there.

“Comparative advantage” is not all it’s cracked up to be. Repeated in business schools as if it were gospel since the 1980s, it goes something like this: “Wool is cheaper in Scotland, and wine is cheaper in France, so France should sell their wine to Scotland, and Scotland should sell their wool to France.” Everybody wins. Period. That’s the extent of it. That is the essence of free trade theory. In the real world, though, policies that rely on “comparative advantage” doctrine as their moral justification have gotten pretty ugly. While overall economic growth may be maximized when every nation exports products that it produces most cost-effectively, the local impacts are not always benign. Nations that produce coffee at competitive global prices, for example, end up with valuable cropland converted from food production to coffee plantations.

These coffee plantations are typically owned by multinational corporations that repatriate profits to low-tax nations elsewhere while buying off a small local elite that streamlines the regulatory environment. Meanwhile, the nation becomes dependent on imports for everything except coffee, and even the coffee ends up priced out of reach for the average citizen. Replace “coffee” with any specialty product, and all too often, the “gains of trade” translate on the ground into nations with seething, destitute populations dependent on accumulating debt and foreign aid. These examples aren’t restricted to foreign nations, nor are they restricted to commodities. While American multinationals moved manufacturing overseas, in the process destroying millions of jobs and thousands of communities in America, it wasn’t just cheap wool, cheap wine, and dirt-cheap flat-screen TVs that were pouring into the country in exchange. We offshored our production of steel, our chip manufacturers, our pharmaceutical industry, and much more.

And even that devastation was tolerated for decades because its effects were mostly felt in what we now call rust belt states. Our service economy and tech sectors boomed, along with what was left of manufacturing, satiating a majority of the population that loved buying cheaper foreign imports. But this whole scheme could never go on forever. America’s trade deficit in 2024 was up to $918 billion, a new record. America’s cumulative trade deficit, nearly all of it incurred since 2000, is now estimated in excess of $17 trillion.

To balance the trade deficit, there is what economists call the “current account.” If dollars flow overseas for us to purchase foreign imports in excess of foreign nations spending dollars to purchase our exports, the surplus dollars are repatriated in the form of foreigners bidding up the prices for assets they purchase in America. A slight oversimplification would be that trade deficits equate to cheap flat screens and unaffordable homes. But there is another reason America has huge trade deficits. It floods the world with dollar-denominated transactions, and by permitting foreigners to buy American assets, we effectively collateralize our currency. And so long as America is for sale in this manner, that helps sustain the dollar as a hard currency.

That comes in handy. For 46 out of the last 50 years, Americans have logged federal budget deficits. So far, the dollar’s status as the dominant transaction and reserve currency of the world gives America’s federal government the ability to borrow money by selling Treasury Notes. This is all well known and rehashed beyond the need to elaborate further. So, why are people acting like this was sustainable? How long can the global economic model rest on American trade deficits funding the military and industrial development of nations that, in some cases, aren’t even allies, with all of it balanced through foreign purchases of American assets? And how long will international demand for dollars finance federal budget deficits? To understand why this had to come to a head, consider federal budget trends in recent years.

In 2019, the last year of Trump’s first term, the federal budget was $4.4 trillion, with interest payments of $400 billion. For 2025, the first year of Trump’s current term, the projected federal budget is $7.0 trillion, with interest of just under $1.0 trillion. What changed? While the COVID pandemic was used to justify massive infusions of stimulative federal cash into the economy, much of it probably necessary, why hasn’t spending been reduced since the pandemic’s impact has been over for at least two years? Are we supposed to just expect massive federal budget deficits year after year? Is it sustainable to log a federal budget deficit that has grown from an alarming $900 billion in 2019 to $1.9 trillion in 2025, more than twice as much?

A roughly accurate summary of the economic reality we confront is federal budget deficits of $2 trillion per year and trade deficits of $1 trillion per year. Trade deficits translate into growing foreign ownership of American assets. Federal budget deficits add up in the form of accumulating, interest-bearing national debt. In 2019, the interest payments on what at the time was $22 trillion in national debt had already reached $575 billion, at an average interest rate of 2.5 percent. By 2024, the national debt had skyrocketed to $35 trillion, an increase of $13 trillion in just six years. Interest payments in 2024 were $1.1 trillion, and the average interest rate had risen to 3.3 percent. “Average” interest rate requires explanation. Ten-year treasury notes currently pay 4.4 percent. Interest rates have risen over the past few years. Imagine if that continues, and $35 trillion (or more) in treasury notes mature and are reinvested at 4.4 percent. That would raise the annual federal interest payment on the national debt to $1.5 trillion. At what point does this become a crisis?

Read more …

 

 

Favorite Calvin of all time.

 

 

https://twitter.com/khnh80044/status/1911960834559148452

Holy week

 

 

Fairy

 

 

Vancouver
https://twitter.com/dom_lucre/status/1912240470480285729

 

 

Charlie
https://twitter.com/khnh80044/status/1912456564352717089

 

 

Two things
https://twitter.com/RealDonKeith/status/1912496724888690887

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Apr 092025
 


Salvador Dali Christ of Saint John of the Cross 1951

 

Trump Assassination ‘Justified’ For Half of Left-Leaning Americans (RT)
Trump Slaps ‘Proud’ China With 104% Tariffs (RT)
White House Lacks Financial Literacy – ‘Tariffs’ Show (MoA)
Don’t Like Trump’s Plan for the Economy? Let’s Hear Yours (Victor Davis Hanson)
US Chamber of Commerce Considers Block on Trump’s New Import Tariffs (Sp.)
EU Commission Eyeing 25% Tariffs on US Goods (Sp.)
Von der Leyen Endorses Meloni As Main Tariff Negotiator (Sp.)
The Tariff Issue (Paul Craig Roberts)
President Trump Bestows Great Honor on Nation of Japan (CTH)
Musk Wants Trump To Cancel Tariffs – WaPo (RT)
Billionaires Slam Trump Tariffs (RT)
Officials Quietly Drafting Plan To Cushion Trump Tariff Fallout – Bloomberg (RT)
Apple Staged Emergency iPhone Airlift From India (RT)
More Than 900k “Biden-App”Migrants Told to ‘Self-Deport’ (NYP)
USAID Operations Rebooted in Several Crisis Zones (Sp.)
Judge Boasberg Scraps Trump Hearing On Deportations After Scotus Ruling (JTN)
Legal Experts Sound Alarm On Judge Blocking Trump’s Deportations (DC)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/itscarterhughes/status/1909334208536846529

MAGA
https://twitter.com/gaborgurbacs/status/1909348105675211192

Bessent

GOAT
https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/1909347460960653353

Rubio

Bondi

 

 

 

 

Won’t surprise too many people. And that’s not good at all.

Trump Assassination ‘Justified’ For Half of Left-Leaning Americans (RT)

More than half of all left-leaning Americans believe there would be some justification for the assassination of US President Donald Trump, according to a new survey. The alarming finding was reported on Monday by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI). The organization monitors radical ideologies and examines what it refers to as “assassination culture” in America. The nonprofit conducted an opinion poll to assess whether American citizens would condone lethal attacks on Trump and his government efficiency tsar, Elon Musk. Among the 1,264 individuals surveyed, 31% and 38% expressed at least some justification for murdering Musk and Trump, respectively. The figures increased to 48% and 55% among respondents identifying as center or left-leaning. In the latter group, 9.1% would deem the assassination of Musk to be “completely justified,” while 13.2% said the same about Trump.

A majority of 57.6% indicated that attacking Tesla dealerships to protest Musk’s involvement with the Trump administration was at least somewhat acceptable. Commenting on the poll’s findings and claims that Democratic leaders have “incited” the situation, Musk branded the political organization “the party of violence.” He previously characterized arson attacks on Tesla-affiliated businesses in the US and abroad as “terrorism.” Last weekend, thousands of Americans marched in various cities to protest Trump’s policies and his support for Musk’s approach to reducing government spending. Critics have labeled the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Musk, as an “illegal power grab” orchestrated by the president.

Trump barely escaped death during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania last July, when a shooter opened fire at him, killing and injuring several supporters of the Republican candidate. The NCRI said its survey confirms broader “troubling trends” within US political culture, suggesting that the endorsement of violence is rooted in a particular far-left ideology. The institute also posits that this ideology fuels the online “memeification” of Luigi Mangione, the alleged murderer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Some Americans view Mangione, against whom the Trump administration is seeking the death penalty, as a folk hero, arguing that his actions could be seen as justifiable vigilantism against a predatory corporate healthcare system.

Read more …

Went into effect at midnight.

Trump Slaps ‘Proud’ China With 104% Tariffs (RT)

The US has hiked tariffs on all Chinese imports to a staggering 104%, escalating the ongoing trade conflict and wiping out another $1.5 trillion from US stock markets on Tuesday. China was originally set to face a 34% tariff increase on Wednesday, as part of President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” measures targeting virtually all US trade partners. However, after Beijing responded with a proportional 34% duty of its own, the US president raised the blanket tariff to a total of 104%. “After all of the abuses they’ve perpetrated, China is attempting to impose additional unjustified tariffs,” Trump said at a National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in Washington on Tuesday. That’s why additional tariffs on Chinese goods are in place, effective midnight tonight at 104 percent. Until they make a deal with us, that’s what it’s going to be.

The White House published an amendment to the April 2 executive order in which Trump declared a national emergency over the US trade deficit and imposed a baseline tariff on all imports to the US. The administration said that nearly 70 countries had sought negotiations to mitigate the impact of the tariffs, as Trump pursues “tailored deals” with individual nations. The president went on to say that Beijing will have to “make a deal at some point,” claiming that “they just don’t know how to get it sorted because they’re proud people.” Until then, he added, China “will now pay a big number to our Treasury.” “Right now, China is paying a 104 percent tariff, think of it… Now, it sounds ridiculous, but they charged us for many items 100 percent, 125 percent,” Trump said. “They’ve ripped us off left and right. But now it’s our turn to do the ripping.”

Beijing previously condemned the escalating trade war as a form of “blackmail” and “economic bullying.” A spokesperson for the Commerce Ministry said on Tuesday that “China will fight till the end if the US side is bent on going down the wrong path.” The latest escalation has had a significant impact on US and global stock markets. Major indices such as the S&P 500, Dow Jones, and Nasdaq suffered further declines after a brief surge earlier this week, wiping out an estimated $1.5 trillion from US markets on Tuesday. Trump acknowledged that the fallout from his move was “somewhat explosive,” but defended his strategy, claiming that “sometimes you have to mix it up a little bit.” He insisted that the tariffs are necessary to address trade “abuses” and to promote domestic manufacturing, adding that the US is already generating $2 billion a day from the tariffs.


Read more …

A good fried pointed to this Moon of Alabama piece from a few days ago. It gives the impression that the Trump team is being sloppy with the tariffs. The only thing is, they say their numbers come “including Currency Manipulation and Trade barriers”. And those are not very clearly defined. But the impression of sloppy is still not a good thing.

White House Lacks Financial Literacy – ‘Tariffs’ Show (MoA)

‘The foundation of American economic prosperity is a society empowered with the knowledge and tools to make informed financial decisions to achieve the American Dream. … ‘ I welcome that message. Teaching financial literacy must start at the top. The members of the Trump administration obviously lack the knowledge and tools to make informed financial decisions. It is the only possible explanation for how they came up with these numbers:

China does not have a 67% tariff on U.S. goods (it’s 7.3%). The EU does not have a 39% tariff on U.S. goods (it’s 5.2%). The numbers are bollocks. So where do they come from? The official explanation from the U.S. Trade Representative is here. Its baloney:

“James Surowiecki @JamesSurowiecki – 0:22 UTC · Apr 3, 2025 “Just figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn’t actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country’s exports to us. So we have a $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9/$28 = 64%, which Trump claims is the tariff rate Indonesia charges us. What extraordinary nonsense this is.

Even given that it’s Trump, I cannot believe they said “We’ll just divide the trade deficit by imports and tell people that’s the tariff rate.” And then they decided to set our tariffs by just cutting that totally made-up rate in half! This is so dumb and deceptive. .. it’s actually worse than I thought: in calculating the tariff rate, Trump’s people only used the trade deficit in goods. So even though we run a trade surplus in services with the world, those exports don’t count as far as Trump is concerned.”

The last point is a major one, for China, but especially for the EU :

“EU-US trade in goods and services reached an impressive €1.6 trillion in 2023. This means that every day, €4.4 billion worth of goods and services cross the Atlantic between the EU and the US. … The total bilateral trade in goods reached €851 billion in 2023. The EU exported €503 billion of goods to the US market, while importing €347 billion; this resulted in a goods trade surplus of €157 billion for the EU. Total bilateral trade in services between the EU and the US was worth €746 billion in 2023. The EU exported €319 billion of services to the US, while importing €427 billion from the US; this resulted in a services trade deficit of €109 billion for the EU. …EU-US goods and services trade is balanced: the difference between EU exports to the US and US exports to the EU stood at €48 billion in 2023; the equivalent of just 3% of the total trade between the EU and the US.”

Despite that Trump has decreed a 20% on all goods from the EU. The natural countermeasure from the EU will be to put a 20+% tariff on all import of U.S. services. Trump also decreed a minimum 10% tariff on imports from every country. Products made by the penguins of the uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands in the Antarctic will now come with a 10% surcharge.”

There is really no economic reasoning behind these numbers. “Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand – 4:16 AM · Apr 3, 2025 “To illustrate just how nonsensically these tariffs were calculated, take the example of Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in Africa with just $2.4 billion in annual GDP, which is being struck with a 50% tariff rate under the Trump plan, the highest rate among all countries on the list…. As a matter of fact Lesotho, as a member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), applies the common external tariff structure established by this regional trade bloc. … So since the tariffs charged by these 5 countries on U.S. products are exactly the same, they must all be struck with a 50% tariff rate by the U.S., right? Not at all: South Africa is getting 30%, Namibia 21%, Botswana 37% and Eswatini just 10%, the lowest rate possible among all countries.

Looking at Lesotho specifically, every year the U.S. imports approximately $236 million in goods from Lesotho (primarily diamonds, textiles and apparel) while exporting only about $7 million worth of goods to Lesotho (https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/LSO/Year/2022/TradeFlow/EXPIMP/Partner/by-country). Why do they export so little? Again this is an extremely poor country where 56.2% of the population lives with less than $3.65 a day (https://databankfiles.worldbank.org/public/…), i.e. $1,300 a year. They simply can’t afford U.S. products, no-one is going to buy an iPhone or a Tesla on that sort of income… The way the tariffs are ACTUALLY calculated appears to be based on a simplistic and economically senseless formula: you take the trade deficit the U.S. has with a country, divide it by that country’s exports to the U.S and declare this – falsely – “the tariff they charge on the U.S.”

And then as Trump did in his speech last night, you magnanimously declare that you’ll only “reciprocate” by charging half that “tariff” on them. As such, for Lesotho, the calculation goes like this: ($236M – $7M)/$235M = 97%. That’s the “tariff” Lesotho is deemed to charge this U.S. and half of that, i.e. roughly 50% is what the U.S. “reciprocates” with. It’s extremely easy to see why this makes no sense at all. ”

Lesotho has a comparative advantage over the U.S. as it can dig up and sell diamonds. But it lacks the purchasing power to buy U.S. goods and services. The calculations by the Trump administration ignore those basic facts. No tariffs were by the way introduced against Belarus, Russia and North Korea. This because of sanction, the U.S. has allegedly no trade relation with them. (Other than buying enriched Uranium for its nuclear power stations?) Did the Trump administration anticipate how this nonsense will explode in its face? It is Smoot-Hawley writ large.

Read more …

“If you don’t believe that what Donald Trump is trying to do on debt, budget, workforce, trade, then come up with a better agenda. And show why it will work and why his will fail..”

Don’t Like Trump’s Plan for the Economy? Let’s Hear Yours (Victor Davis Hanson)

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I’d like to talk about the economy and politics very quickly. Whether you like it or I like it or whether the administration likes it or whether the Congress or the American people like it, the success or failure of President Donald Trump will hinge on the status of the economy. It will overshadow the miraculous achievement on the border, where he went from a rate of about 2 million people a year to almost zero illegal immigration. It will even outrank the question of peace and stability in Ukraine or the Middle East. It’ll outrank everything. So, here’s my question. There is now outrage, hysteria over the last 24 hours to 48 hours that Donald Trump has outlined his tariff program to bring down the nearly $1 trillion trade deficit, and the stock market has taken hits.

So, here’s my question, though, when Sen. Cory Booker stands up for 25 hours, does he give an alternate agenda on the economy? Does Rep. Nancy Pelosi talk about the economy? She used to. Does The Wall Street Journal, when they criticize Donald Trump, why don’t they get a columnist and say, “These are the 10 points that are preferable in addressing our economic challenges”? Now, what are our economic challenges? Well, the first is debt. We owe $37 trillion. We’re paying $3 billion a day in interest. We’re running a $1.7 trillion deficit. So, if you were on the left and you were part of the machine that borrowed $7 trillion under President Joe Biden, created these huge new programs, why don’t you make an argument? Just say, “I believe in modern monetary theory. I believe, if we can just get down to 1% or 2% interest, you can service any debt because the bondholders, they’re wealthy anyway. So, that’s what we’ve been doing. And I don’t—I believe money’s a construct. It’s just an idea. So, there is no such thing as, you know, red or blue ink—any of that. So, just keep spending. There’s no problem—$37, $40 trillion.” Say that.

Or, if you’re on the right, say, “I prefer to look at the debt in a different way. If you’re going to cut, why select particular fraud, waste, and abuse areas? Why not just go across the board and treat everybody the same with a 4% or 5% or 10% cut?” Or, if you don’t believe in cutting government to reduce the debt, then say, “Let’s just go completely laissez-faire and let’s grow the economy so it’s growing at 4% or 5% gross domestic product. And it will solve the problem.” Or, if you’re in the middle and you’re an independent, why don’t you just say, “We had three balanced budgets. We were reducing the debt because former House Speaker Newt Gingrich controlled taxes and former President Bill Clinton controlled spending. And he was able to find an incentive plan to increase revenue and Bill Clinton decreased spending. OK? Why not we go back and follow their model?”

But the problem is none of these areas—right, center, and left—nobody in these disciplines is offering any alternative agenda. It’s just attack Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Let’s go to trades. So, we have, again, about a trillion-dollar trade deficit. We haven’t had balanced trade for 50 years. Our opponents, challengers, allies, whatever you want to call them, feel that protected tariffs in China, in India, in Europe, in South Korea, in Japan have been very conducive to their economic miracle—postwar miracles. And they feel that there must be some wisdom in them because they continue to perpetuate them. They have not run deficits for a half-century. They’re not, in terms of GDP, debt, quite like we are. So, maybe you can argue that tariffs are just an American problem. An obsession. And they don’t really matter. Or you can say that we should have reciprocal tariffs based on each one. But tell us what you want to do.

Why don’t you just say that if you—and I have read this from scholars as diverse as the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute. This is just a construct, trade deficits, they don’t matter. Because the people, if they run up a surplus, they buy our bonds or they invest, and it’s a circular process—just say that. Or, if you believe that trade deficits matter, then you say, “Well, the answer is not through tariffs. It’s through greater productivity. And here’s how I want to do it.” But again, there’s nothing. And then we get, finally, into foreign investment. Donald Trump is bragging, I think justifiably so, that he may have $3 to $5 trillion in foreign investment. Nobody says a word about it. Nobody says this many trillion dollars will result in this many new jobs created. No, they just kind of ignore it. So, give us a reason why. Just say, “You know, the new massive amounts of foreign aid will have no effect on either our trade deficit or our budget deficit. It’s just a construct that Trump says.”

Or say that it will but it won’t nullify the pernicious effects of tariffs. But what I’m getting at, in conclusion, is what if Cory Booker had said, “I’m going to speak for 25 hours on why Donald Trump’s trade, debt, and federal workforce investment are all wrong. And here’s da, da, da, da”? Or what if House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “Here is our contract for America on the economy. The economy”? No one is giving any alternatives. No one is talking in any way that they have an antithetical and a better plan than Donald Trump. So, what we’re left with is just naysaying, nihilism, criticism. And the American people are confused. If you don’t believe that what Donald Trump is trying to do on debt, budget, workforce, trade, then come up with a better agenda. And show why it will work and why his will fail. But don’t just scream and yell and cause all hysteria and go to street theater because that’s no answer. It only amplifies the problem.

Read more …

Guess they can try.. But so could anyone.

US Chamber of Commerce Considers Block on Trump’s New Import Tariffs (Sp.)

The US Chamber of Commerce, the country’s most powerful corporate lobby, is considering filing a lawsuit against the administration of US President Donald Trump to block the entry of new import tariffs into force, the Fortune magazine reported, citing sources familiar with the discussions of the lawsuit. The Chamber of Commerce may claim that Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs was illegal. According to the publication, some of the organization’s largest members are calling for the lawsuit. Sources also say that other organizations might join the lawsuit. The head of the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Elon Musk personally asked US President Donald Trump to reconsider new US tariffs on imports from a number of countries, the Washington Post reported, citing two sources.

According to the publication, over the weekend, when Elon Musk unleashed a stream of messages on social media criticizing one of the White House’s top advisers, trade aide Peter Navarro, for Trump’s aggressive tariff plan, he personally approached the president. The attempt, however, has not yet been successful: Trump on Monday threatened to add new 50% tariffs on imports from China on top of those already announced if Beijing did not abandon its retaliatory measures, the newspaper said. On Sunday, Musk announced his support for the creation of a free trade area with the EU, despite President Trump’s previously imposed trade tariffs against the union. The US President signed an executive order on April 2 introducing “reciprocal” tariffs on imports from other countries, calling it a “liberation.” The basic minimum rate will be 10%, and 20% for goods from the European Union. The US President promised budget revenue from tariffs of $6-$7 trillion.

Read more …

They have no idea what to do, zero consensus.. And all 27 of them will have to agree.

EU Commission Eyeing 25% Tariffs on US Goods (Sp.)

The European Commission is proposing to impose reciprocal tariffs of up to 25% on a number of goods from the United States, in particular on clothing, yachts, fruit juices, nuts and diamonds, the RMF FM radio reported. Bourbon was excluded from the preliminary list after protests from France and Italy, which feared that the United States would impose 200% duties on wine, prosecco and champagne, the report said on Monday. EU countries are expected to vote on this proposal on Wednesday, the report added. However, the commission is still counting on negotiations with Washington, and it has proposed reciprocal zero tariffs on industrial products, including cars, the report read.

At the same time, French Minister Delegate for Europe Benjamin Haddad said that Paris is in favor of a tough response to the US tariffs and will support the European Commission’s decision to impose 25% tariffs on some US imports. On April 2, US President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on imports from other countries. For the UK the baseline rate of 10% was set. However for each country the tariff will be calibrated and will be half of what they charge companies importing US goods. Trump said this will be a “declaration of economic independence” for the United States. The EU is subject to 20% tariffs.

Read more …

Ursula von der Leyen is afraid of the White House.

Von der Leyen Endorses Meloni As Main Tariff Negotiator (Sp.)

As the White House prepares to receive the Italian PM on April 17, Ursula von der Leyen believes Giorgia Meloni is the only EU leader who can facilitate dialogue with Trump, the WP reports, citing Italian officials. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen supports the upcoming visit of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to Washington and believes that she is the one who is capable of facilitating dialogue between the European Union and US President Donald Trump, The Washington Post newspaper reported, citing an Italian official. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump would receive Meloni in Washington on April 17.

“Von der Leyen is telling [Meloni] that if there’s one leader more in contact with the US, who’s capable of facilitating the conversation between the EU – not just Italy – and Trump, that’s her,” the official was quoted as saying by the newspaper on Tuesday. Von der Leyen was in favor of Meloni’s trip to Washington, the report added.

Read more …

“..returning to tariffs as the source of government revenues and abandoning the income tax. This is consistent with correct economics and with freedom. Such a change would be possibly the most important reform in American history.”

The Tariff Issue (Paul Craig Roberts)

The tariff controversy is being colored in the most scary ways possible, because the Democrats, media, and ruling establishment want rid of Trump. It is also important to understand that tariffs are not the only way to limit imports. There are other means, such as quotas. Quotas on imports into the US of Japanese cars were part of the US auto producers bailout negotiated in the final year of the Carter administration. I will attempt to put the issue in a correct perspective. It is not Trump’s intention, at least at the present time, to institutionalize a tariff regime. Trump is using tariffs as a threat to secure agreements that he thinks are in America’s interests. So far 50 countries have, according to reports, agreed to remove their tariffs on US goods. The countries responding aggressively seem to be China and our European allies.

I explained yesterday how Trump could better have gone about his task. Nevertheless, as the Commerce Secretary said, Trump’s tariffs are not expected to extend beyond a few weeks or a few months of negotiation. During this time there could be supply disruptions. Apparently, Trump is aware and has released an 11-page appendix that exempts all sorts of imported items that US producers require to continue their operations. Whatever disruption does occur, should be small compared to the Covid lockdown supply disruption, the basic cause of the current inflation. The Covid disruption was pointless and counterproductive. The tariff disruption, if there is one, is the cost of establishing a fair and uniform trading system. So, Trump is not being arbitrary or on a rampage to destroy international trade. Tariff negotiations, especially with so many countries and products can go on for years.

Trump might think that he only has two years to get anything done before the Democrats steal the midterm elections and bring his renewal of America to a halt. President Trump has spoken of tariffs in a wider and much more important context. Over most of American history until the First World War, tariff revenues were the source of government revenues. An income tax was unconstitutional and a violation of freedom. The definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. A slave does not own his own labor, and a serf only owns part of his labor. A person required to pay an income tax does not own that part of his labor that he must provide to government in order to avoid imprisonment. The difference between a medieval serf and an American taxpayer is the serf paid the tax in kind as hours worked, and the American pays the tax in money as a percentage of his income.

Classical economists, real economists unlike the faux ones of today, understood that factors of production–labor and capital–should not be taxed, because the supply of both to the economy is reduced by taxation. Supply-side economics is based on this principle. Thus, its emphasis on lowering the marginal rates of taxation. Reducing the supply of factors of production, reduces the economic growth rate and the national income. The century that the US economy has labored under income tax has costs us substantially in lost income. The classical economists said that taxation should fall on consumption not on factors of production. Traditionally, imported items are finished goods–German cars, French wines and perfumes. High priced goods are for the wealthy, so tariffs fall on the rich. The working class does not indulge in Porsche cars and Clicquot champagne. However, for about 30 years much of our imports have consisted of the offshored production of US firms.

When Apple, for example, brings its products made in China to the US to be marketed, they come in as imports and worsen the US trade deficit. Instead of beating up on China, Trump should call the US corporations that offshore their production for US markets to a White House conference and point out to them the consequences of their policy: the shrinkage of the American middle class, the loss of tax base, decaying infrastructure, and loss population of America’s former manufacturing cities, the pressure on city and state pension systems, the pressure of lower ratings on municipal bonds. Trump should ask the executives if they went too far in maximizing profits that benefitted a relatively few at the expense of the many, and what they think they should do about it. Capitalism ceases to serve the general interest when it separates Americans from the incomes associated with the production of the goods and services that they consume.

Trump has spoken of returning to tariffs as the source of government revenues and abandoning the income tax. This is consistent with correct economics and with freedom. Such a change would be possibly the most important reform in American history. It would be a difficult reform to achieve, because ideological, not economic, considerations intervene. Taxing the rich became the agenda of mass democracy. Taxing the rich was not seen as punishing a person for being successful. A successful person was portrayed as having become rich by exploiting labor. As fortunes were “stolen” by exploiting labor or resulted from government preference or legal privilege, income taxation was perceived as an instrument of justice. It is certainly perceived that way today by the liberal/left and the Democrat Party.

As an income tax is emotionally satisfying to the liberal/left, we are stuck with slower economic growth and less national income. It is disturbing that the liberal/left agenda has made American politics so highly partisan. What we see today is literal hatred of Trump, Republicans, conservatives, and white heterosexuals by the liberal/left. Hatred makes democracy dysfunctional. Politics cannot function as each side is intent on destroying any achievement by the other side. As democracy ceases to function, dictatorship becomes the means of governance. The liberal/left’s agenda to remake America by destroying its roots and recasting it into a different kind of society means the death of democracy and the rise of dictatorship. This is our real problem.

Read more …

“Prime Minister Abe knew what President Trump was trying to achieve. In turn, President Trump knew Abe would remain a fierce Japan-first trade competitor to the America-first program..”

President Trump Bestows Great Honor on Nation of Japan (CTH)

The decades long relationship between former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Donald Trump permeates through a recent announcement that Japan will be the first nation to enter the new era of trade negotiations with the United States. Shinzo Abe was assassinated in July 2022, as he traveled throughout Japan gaining support for increased national military development. As businessmen and later politicians Donald Trump and Shinzo Abe (RIP) had a decades long friendship grounded in mutual respect and competition. To understand the dynamic of President Trump giving the nation of Japan the position as the first nation to enter new trade negotiations, a high honor, is to understand the business relationship between the U.S and Japan in the post-World War II (40 yr) period between 1950 and 1990. The formative years for both Japanese industry and President Trump’s business empire.

For Europe the U.S. gave them money through the Marshall Plan, a process of one-way tariffs which helped them rebuild their nations. For Japan we gave them W Edwards Demming, an industrial engineer and extraordinarily brilliant mind in the processes of efficiency and industrial production. In essence, to generate the reindustrialization of both economies, we gave the EU a fish (money), but we taught Japan how to fish; how to be create and build exceptional industry. In the decades that followed, the EU rebuilt their capitalistic industrial base from the trade and tariff money we permitted them to exploit. The EU rebuilt from their historic systems, upgrading to newer industrial technology. Japan, however, learned deeper more technical skills from the Demming process of industrial capacity building, a critically strong excellence in quality manufacturing and attention to specific details in all processes.

It did not take long before the results of quality in design and Japanese manufacturing surfaced in the sector of automobiles, and later consumer electronics. The U.S. auto industry was slow to adapt to the Japanese quality focus and began losing market share to Toyota, Datsun, Nissan and Honda. Throughout this period, President Trump and Shinzo Abe were on opposite sides of the industrial competition. Trump railing about Japan, and later aggregate Asia exploiting our generosity; Abe smiling and joking with his friend that despite Trump’s grievances, tomorrow Eric will be purchasing 1,500 Sony televisions for his next Hotel. And so it went…. The friendship grew, the competition was intense but incredibly respectful, and both Shinzo Abe and Donald Trump became men of great influence whose partnership in competition was always visible.

Prime Minister Abe knew what President Trump was trying to achieve. In turn, President Trump knew Abe would remain a fierce Japan-first trade competitor to the America-first program. Tremendous respect and mutual admiration underpinned their geopolitical efforts. No single picture better exemplified the nature of Trump and Abe as the G7 summit picture taken in Canada as the ripple effects of Trump’s first-term trade and tariff program against China (mostly) started to hit the global economy. As China started to feel the pressure from President Trump forming new ASEAN partnerships, China started pulling back from ordering heavy industrial goods from Europe. The EU, specifically the German economy, felt the lessening of Chinese manufacturing via diminished orders. However, a respectful Japan positioned their trade agreements for benefit, but also for benefit of American workers.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe knew there was nothing to fear from President Trump’s global trade reset. Unless, that is, you were a nation taking unfair advantage of the generosity provided by America. It makes total sense in the big picture for President Trump to honor the legacy of Shinzo Abe, and the respectful connections to Japan by granting them the first position in the schedule of the global trade reset. Total sense.

Read more …

Musk’s private war with Navarro doesn’t define his relationship with Trump.

Musk Wants Trump To Cancel Tariffs – WaPo (RT)

Elon Musk has made direct appeals to US President Donald Trump, urging him to reconsider his decision to impose steep tariffs on American trade partners, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday. According to the outlet, many business and tech leaders who supported Trump’s candidacy have also criticized the move, calling it overly aggressive. Trump unveiled sweeping new tariffs on global imports last week, including a 34% duty on Chinese goods. In response, Beijing pledged to retaliate with a matching 34% tariff on American exports – prompting Trump to threaten an additional new 50% tariff. Over the weekend, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk – who serves as Trump’s government efficiency czar – fired off a series of social media posts criticizing White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, a central architect of the president’s aggressive tariff strategy.

“A PhD in Econ from Harvard is a bad thing, not a good thing,” Musk wrote. Musk also reportedly reached out to Trump personally. The attempted intervention has so far failed to yield results, two people familiar with the matter told the Washington Post. As the head of Tesla, Musk has long viewed tariffs as harmful to the company’s goals, given that both the US and China serve as major manufacturing bases and key markets. Many business leaders who supported Trump’s candidacy were also frustrated by their inability to influence the policy and suggested that a basic 10% rate combined with negotiations with other countries would have been sufficient, according to the Post.

People close to Musk reportedly made direct appeals to allies within the Trump administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Musk himself, advocating for what they saw as more rational, pro-free-trade policies. One of Musk’s associates, investor Joe Lonsdale, posted on X that he had recently urged “friends in the administration” to reconsider, warning that tariffs would harm American companies more than Chinese ones. Over the weekend, a group of business leaders began organizing an informal coalition to lobby members of the Trump administration for more moderate trade policies, one person familiar with the effort told the Post. Trump has defended his actions, stating that “sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something,” and promised that jobs and investment would return to the United States, making it “wealthy like never before.”

Read more …

They’re the big losers.

Billionaires Slam Trump Tariffs (RT)

A host of American financiers and billionaire investors have criticized President Donald Trump over the sweeping tariffs he announced last week, calling the measures “poorly advised” and warning of serious consequences for the US economy. On April 2, Trump imposed a minimum 10% tariff on all imports and introduced “reciprocal” duties ranging from 11% to 50% on dozens of countries he accused of maintaining unfair trade imbalances. China responded with a reciprocal tariff of 34% on US imports, while a number of other nations signaled willingness to negotiate with Washington but threatened countermeasures if talks fail. Global markets have reacted sharply, with major indexes in the US, Europe, and Asia falling for three straight days.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon slammed the tariffs in his annual letter to shareholders, warning they “will probably increase inflation” and the risk of recession, with the negative effects difficult to reverse. Ken Langone, billionaire co-founder of retailer Home Depot, criticized the tariffs as too high and rushed. In an interview with the Financial Times published on Monday, he described the additional 34% tariff on China – on top of the existing 20% – as “too aggressive, too soon,” and called the 46% levy on Vietnam “bullshit.” “I don’t understand the goddamn formula,” Langone said, urging a more measured approach, such as a 10% across-the-board tariff with waivers negotiated on a case-by-case basis. He added that he expects Trump to eventually pursue talks with trade partners because “right now, what everybody’s terrified of is a tariff war.”

Hedge fund investor Stanley Druckenmiller, a close mentor to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, posted a brief statement on X on Sunday: “I do not support tariffs exceeding 10%.” Billionaire investor Bill Ackman called the tariffs an “economic nuclear war” in a post on X. He called for a 10% flat tariff for “the privilege” of access to the US market but suggested pausing the reciprocal duties for 90 days to allow private negotiations. He lambasted Trump for relying on advisers for economic calculations, which he labeled incompetent. “The global economy is being taken down because of bad math,” he wrote.

Even tech mogul Elon Musk, Trump’s government efficiency czar, joined the criticism. He posted a series of comments on social media targeting White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, a key architect of the tariff plan, saying he “ain’t built sh*t” with the policy. Musk’s brother, Tesla board member Kimbal Musk, also condemned the tariffs, calling them a “structural, permanent tax on the American consumer.” Treasury Secretary Bessent said on Monday that Washington is open to “meaningful negotiations” in the coming weeks with trade partners, but only those who have responded “positively” to Trump’s tariffs. He criticized China for its response levies, accusing Beijing of “choosing to isolate itself by retaliating and doubling down on previous negative behavior.” China, in turn, described the new US tariffs as “economic bullying” and warned they could destabilize the entire global trade system.

Read more …

“..any tax proposals or initiatives Bessent may pursue would be aligned with “his full support for President Trump’s America First Economic Agenda.”

Officials Quietly Drafting Plan To Cushion Trump Tariff Fallout – Bloomberg (RT)

US officials are exploring ways to mitigate the potentially harmful effects of the sweeping tariffs announced by President Donald Trump, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing sources in Washington. The talks are reportedly being held without Trump’s knowledge and reflect internal unease over his shift in trade policy. Last week, Trump imposed a minimum 10% tariff on all imports and introduced “reciprocal” duties ranging from 11% to 50% on dozens of countries he accused of maintaining unfair trade imbalances. The new measures included an additional 34% duty on imports from China, on top of an existing 20% rate implemented earlier, and a 20% levy on goods from the EU, among others.

On Monday, Trump threatened to slap a further 50% tariff on all Chinese imports unless Beijing reverses the 34% hike it announced in response to the new US levies. A number of other countries have slammed Trump’s tariffs over the past few days and vowed to implement countermeasures. According to Bloomberg, Trump administration officials fear that retaliatory tariffs will damage US exports, hurting American firms trying to sell goods abroad. Sources said discussions are underway about a potential exporter tax credit, which would serve as a subsidy for US firms selling products and services overseas. The credit, which would require congressional approval, could be issued at the end of the year.

Officials are also reportedly weighing a credit for importers to shield US companies from rising costs when sourcing goods from countries affected by Trump’s tariffs. These measures would aim to soften the economic blow to both exporters and importers once the tariffs take full effect. Sources told Bloomberg that neither Trump nor Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been formally briefed on the deliberations, and the proposals have yet to receive full backing from the administration’s economic team. A Treasury spokesperson confirmed the discussions but stressed that any talk of “specific provisions” are “still early.” The spokesperson added that any tax proposals or initiatives Bessent may pursue would be aligned with “his full support for President Trump’s America First Economic Agenda.” The White House declined to comment on the report.

Trump’s tariffs and the threat of retaliation have raised fears of a global trade war. Several investment banks have raised their recession risk forecasts for both the US and global economies over the past week. Stock markets have been rattled, with major indexes in the US, Europe, and Asia all trading lower the past three days. Despite the criticism, Trump has defended the tariffs as essential to correcting trade imbalances. On Monday, he claimed on social media that the measures were working and delivering significant economic benefits to the US.

Read more …

$3,000 for an iPhone? Make a deal with India.

Apple Staged Emergency iPhone Airlift From India (RT)

Apple transported five planeloads of iPhones and other devices from India to the US within a three-day period in late March, according to a report by the Times of India, quoting unnamed senior officials. The move was reportedly made to evade a new 10% reciprocal tariff introduced by US President Donald Trump, which came into effect on April 5. The company’s factories in India, China, and other key locations have shipped their products to the US in anticipation of higher tariffs, a source was quoted as saying in the report. The existing stock, which was imported at lower rates, will protect the company from higher costs for a while, until new shipments are made under the new tariffs, a source told the paper.

Although production has been partly shifted to Vietnam and India, the majority of iPhones are still manufactured in China. However, these countries are now facing tariffs as well, with Vietnam and India being hit with tariffs of 46% and 26%, respectively. Chinese products currently face a 34% import tax in the US. Apple is analyzing how different tariff structures across manufacturing locations will affect its supply chain, according to market watchers. Apple sells more than 220 million iPhones a year; its biggest markets include the US, China, and Europe, according to market data.

The cheapest iPhone 16 model was launched in the US at $799. This could now rise by 43% to $1,142. if Apple passes on the burden to consumers, Reuters said, citing calculations based on projections from analysts at Rosenblatt Securities. Apple currently does not plan to increase retail prices anywhere in the world, the Times of India added. Earlier today, a Wall Street Journal report said Apple is ramping up efforts to export more iPhones from India to the US in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the high tariffs on Chinese products imposed by Trump.

Read more …

The welcoming app to facilitate the entry of illegals.

More Than 900k “Biden-App”Migrants Told to ‘Self-Deport’ (NYP)

The Department of Homeland Security is urging nearly 1 million asylum seekers who entered the US through the CBP One app to “immediately” begin to “self-deport.” “Canceling these paroles is a promise kept to the American people to secure our borders and protect national security,” a DHS spokesperson said, following anecdotal reports from migrants that they had been told to return to their countries of origin. The CBP One smartphone app launched in January 2023 and through December 2024 was used to admit more than 936,500 people claiming persecution in their homelands, according to DHS data. Users were granted permission to live and work for two years in the US as they awaited the outcome of often backlogged local immigration proceedings. “Formal termination notices have been issued, and affected aliens are urged to voluntarily self-deport using the CBP Home App. Those who refuse will be found, removed, and permanently barred from reentry,” the DHS spokesperson said.

President Joe Biden’s administration launched the app to tamp down record-high illegal border crossings, but congressional Republicans accused Biden of illegally exceeding the traditional “parole” authority, which they said could not be granted categorically. The Trump DHS spokesperson said: “The Biden Administration abused the parole authority to allow millions of illegal aliens into the US which further fueled the worst border crisis in US history.” Precise data about the number of people impacted by the move are unclear for a variety of reasons — including the fact that some may have already been granted asylum, while others may be shielded by additional legal protections. The CBP One app was launched with a goal of facilitating the orderly movement of would-be illegal border crossers into the US from northern Mexico. Although geared to nationalities such as Haitians and Venezuelans flocking to the southwest border, Mexicans and citizens of other countries could participate.

Migrants who entered the US as part of programs for Afghan and Ukrainian citizens are not impacted by the latest announcement, according to DHS. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also is revoking parole for 532,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who flew to the US at their own expense with a financial sponsor — effective April 24. Additionally, the Trump administration is moving to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 600,000 Venezuelans and about 500,000 Haitians — though that effort is paused by litigation. TPS grants 18-month reprieves for residents of designated countries and can apply to all residents of a particular nationality living within the US at the time of the protection’s declaration.

Illegal US-Mexico border crossings have plummeted since Trump took office in January with pledges to launch the largest mass deportation campaign in American history. That drive initially has focused on migrants accused of committing crimes — with Trump coercing their home countries to accept deportation flights, while sending some to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and others to a mega-prison in El Salvador.

Read more …

If you can keep out the politics, their infrastructure may be useful…

USAID Operations Rebooted in Several Crisis Zones (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) chief Elon Musk have repeatedly accused USAID of fraud, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the agency had long “strayed from its original mission.” At least 6 previously terminated USAID programs are being revived for emergency food assistance funding in Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, Jordan, Iraq, and Ecuador, Reuters reported. The move reportedly followed pressure from inside the administration and from Congress. US president Donald had previously frozen foreign aid and dismissed hundreds of USAID employees as part of DOGE-led efforts to slash federal programs and departments with little oversight, with Elon Musk calling labelling the agency a “criminal organization.” By bankrolling so-called civil society groups, USAID has long functioned as a covert enabler of American influence, sowing unrest and paving the way for regime change while packaging it all as “promoting democracy.”

Read more …

Turns out, he’s not (more powerful than) the president after all…

Judge Boasberg Scraps Trump Hearing On Deportations After Scotus Ruling (JTN)

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Tuesday canceled a deportation hearing for the Trump administration after the Supreme Court ruled the U.S. could continue to carry out deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The hearing was to determine whether Boasberg would change the temporary restraining order he issued last month to block those deportations into a longer preliminary injunction, according to ABC News. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration could use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. The ruling overturns Boasberg’s March 15 order that temporarily blocked deportations under the wartime act, by granting the Trump administration’s request to vacate temporary restraining orders Boasberg placed on the order.

Miller

Read more …

“..his job isn’t to create policy—that duty belongs to the Executive Branch and Congress,” he said. “Instead, Judge Boasberg was charged with applying the relevant law to the facts of the case..”

Legal Experts Sound Alarm On Judge Blocking Trump’s Deportations (DC)

As U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg continues to be a thorn in the side of the Trump administration’s effort to deport gangbangers, legal experts have begun to raise questions about his handling of the case. The Barack Obama-appointed judge in March blocked President Donald Trump from using wartime authorities to send suspected Tren de Aragua gangbangers to a mega-prison in El Salvador, prompting incredible pushback from the president himself. As the challenge to the deportations play out in court, some legal experts have argued Boasberg should recuse himself from the case entirely, while others say he appears to be “making policy from the bench.” Critics have pointed to the fact that Boasberg’s daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for an organization whose founder openly celebrated her father’s decision to halt the deportations.

“Under Canon 3 (C) (1) of the ‘Code of Conduct for United States Judges’ it states that judges must disqualify themselves from a case ‘in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Given that his daughter works directly for an organization that supports illegal aliens, opposes deportation of aliens, and has voiced its support for Boasberg’s action in this very case, the impartiality of his judgment is obviously open to be reasonably questioned.” “He should have recused himself given his immediate family’s involvement in advocacy for illegal immigration,” Spakovsky continued.

The debate began on March 15, when Trump officially invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a seldom-used wartime authority, to expeditiously arrest and deport Tren de Aragua gang members. Boasberg quickly issued a temporary block on the flights and ordered any deportation flights in the air to turn around. However, three planes carrying 238 suspected and confirmed Tren de Aragua gangbangers and 23 MS-13 gang members managed to land at the El Salvador International airport. The Trump administration immediately ripped Boasberg for the decision. “Tonight, a DC trial judge supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans,” Attorney General Pam Bondi stated after Boasberg’s order. “This order disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk.”

In a court filing the following Monday, the Justice Department appealed the order and called for Boasberg to be reassigned. The administration further ripped the judge for “highly unusual and improper procedures” and accused the court of a “hasty public inquiry” into sensitive national security matters involving a criminal syndicate. “If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!” Trump posted on Truth Social. Questions over possible conflicts of interest arose after Boasberg’s family connections to a liberal organization surfaced. His daughter, Katharine, works for Partners in Justice, a nonprofit group based in New York City that provides client advocates to public defenders.

The group removed her biography from its website after Boasberg was assigned to the Alien Enemies Act case, according to the New York Post, but an archive of the page was saved. Before landing at Partners for Justice, Katharine worked at the Center for Justice Innovation, a left-wing organization that advocates for “racial justice” in the court system. Emily Galvin-Almanza, the founder and executive director of Partners in Justice, said Boasberg’s decision to block the wartime deportations was done “rightly” and she previously took to social media to rip the Laken Riley Act, a law mandating federal immigration authorities detain illegal migrants who commit theft-related crimes. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges makes clear that judges must recuse themselves from a case “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” including instances when a child of a judge is “known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

However, there is debate over whether Boasberg fits this description. “Generally the employment of an adult child of a judge does not mandate recusal, even if the adult child is employed by a law firm representing a party in the case,” Richard Painter, a law professor for the University of Minnesota, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “However, if the adult child is at all involved in the representation of a party, recusal of the judge is generally required.” “Although nonprofits that don’t provide legal representation do not represent parties, I would apply the same rule,” Painter continued. “The involvement of an adult child’s employee in a matter is not sufficient grounds for recusal, but the involvement of the adult child herself is.”

Appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2011, Boasberg has since presided over a number of high-profile court cases over the years, including those involving the Trump administration. In addition to the Alien Enemies Act case, the 62-year-old judge is also ruling over a lawsuit challenging top government officials’ use of Signal to discuss sensitive military operations in Yemen. Boasberg ripped the administration for allowing the deportation flights on March 15 to continue on to their destination in El Salvador, ostensibly in defiance of his order, and has demanded the DOJ answer a litany of questions regarding the flights. The administration has pointed out the judge’s written order didn’t get released until after the flights were already over international waters. While hesitant to declare whether Boasberg has any conflicts of interest in the deportation case, Matt O’Brien, a former immigration judge, questioned the immense scope of his ruling.

“The real problem with Judge Boasberg’s ruling isn’t any kind of bias. Rather, it is that, in this particular case, he rendered a decision which appears to have been intended to effectuate a specific policy outcome,” O’Brien, who now serves as Director of Investigations for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “However, his job isn’t to create policy—that duty belongs to the Executive Branch and Congress,” he said. “Instead, Judge Boasberg was charged with applying the relevant law to the facts of the case. Rather than doing his job he engaged in judicial activism (making policy from the bench).” Similar to O’Brien, the administration and other Republicans have voiced consternation over the level of authority a single district court judge is able to wield over an entire administrative branch of government.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a top ally of the president, introduced legislation in March that calls for limiting federal court orders to parties directly before the court. If passed and signed into law, such a move would essentially squash universal injunctions and rein in the scope of judicial activism. The desire to see such reforms in the judiciary appears to be quite high within the GOP. Grassley’s bill, which was very recently introduced, already touts more than 20 co-sponsors in the upper chamber. “And by engaging in such behavior, Judge Boasberg intruded upon powers that the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act very clearly assigned to the Executive Branch,” O’Brien said. “That upends our system of checks and balances and throws the whole machinery of government off kilter.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Jesus

85 million

Cancer
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1909374230585635102

DMSO

Pasta

3D cube
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1909527032414757129

Capy

Ripley

Puddle

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Apr 082025
 
 April 8, 2025  Posted by at 10:14 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  38 Responses »


Salvador Dali Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee 1944

 

Don’t Be Weak, Don’t Be A PANICAN (ZH)
Trump Shows No Sign Of Backing Away From Sweeping Tariff Plans (NYP)
China Vows To ‘Fight Till The End’ Against Trump’s Tariffs (RT)
Trump Threatens China With Extra 50% Tariff (RT)
EU Offers US a ‘Zero-for-Zero’ Tariff Plan To Avoid A Trade War (JTN)
The European Union Just Caved on Trump’s Tariffs (Margolis)
The Art of (No) Deal: Can The EU Stand Up To Trump’s Tariffs? (Marsden)
Trump’s Tariff Gamble Could Plunge Planet Into New Great Depression (Sp.)
Bill Ackman: World Is On Brink Of ‘Self-induced Economic Nuclear Winter’ (NYP)
Trump Impromptu Remarks Discussing Tariffs and Trade Reset with Media (CTH)
Farewell, Fugazy! (James Howard Kunstler)
Supreme Court Slapdown of Judge Boasberg Sends Message To Federal Judges (JTN)
Conservative Legal Scholars Debate Response to Liberal Judges’ Overreach (DS)
Members of Congress Must Be Present to Represent (Young)
World Economic Forum Founder Klaus Schwab To Also Step Down As Chairman (JTN)
EU Looking To Replace Musk’s Starlink In Ukraine – Politico (RT)
Germany To Prepare Children For War – Handelsblatt (RT)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1908901393605197976

https://twitter.com/robertdunlap947/status/1908635019653898627

Miller

Bessent

Payne

 

 

 

 

Through all the comments there is one impression that sticks: Trump plays offense. But at least in his view he is not: he plays defense. He tries to correct past mistakes.

Don’t Be Weak, Don’t Be A PANICAN (ZH)

President Trump on Monday urged Americans not to panic over tariff-driven turmoil in the markets, and said that “Countries from all over the World are talking to us.” “The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO. Don’t be Weak! Don’t be Stupid! Don’t be a PANICAN (A new party based on Weak and Stupid people!). Be Strong, Courageous, and Patient, and GREATNESS will be the result!” Trump posted Monday morning on Truth Social about 15 minutes before cash open on US exchanges.

Ten minutes later, Trump posted that “Countries from all over the World are talking to us.” “Spoke to the Japanese Prime Minister this morning. He is sending a top team to negotiate! They have treated the U.S. very poorly on Trade. They don’t take our cars, but we take MILLIONS of theirs. Likewise Agriculture, and many other “things.” It all has to change, but especially with CHINA!!!”

Trump has insisted that tariffs are necessary to rebalance global trade and rebuild domestic manufacturing – singling out China as “the biggest abuser of them all,” and has called on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. In a Friday conversation, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell didn’t give much of an indication on how the fed would react – suggesting only that the tariffs could increase inflation, and that “there’s a lot of waiting and seeing going on, including by us.” Over the weekend, Trump suggested that the market turmoil was part of the plan – saying “Sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something.”

Read more …

Backing away now would signal weakness. Enough time for that.

Trump Shows No Sign Of Backing Away From Sweeping Tariff Plans (NYP)

A defiant President Trump showed no sign of backing away from his sweeping tariff plans early Monday — even as stock index futures tumbled. “Oil prices are down, interest rates are down (the slow moving Fed should cut rates!), food prices are down, there is NO INFLATION, and the long time abused USA is bringing in Billions of Dollars a week from the abusing countries on Tariffs that are already in place,” he wrote on Truth Social just before 7 a.m. The commander in chief also ripped China after Beijing struck back against Trump’s far-reaching “Liberation Day” with its own 34% levy last week. “This is despite the fact that the biggest abuser of them all, China, whose markets are crashing, just raised its Tariffs by 34%, on top of its long term ridiculously high Tariffs (Plus!), not acknowledging my warning for abusing countries not to retaliate,” Trump said.

“They’ve made enough, for decades, taking advantage of the Good OL’ USA! Our past “leaders” are to blame for allowing this, and so much else, to happen to our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” It came as S&P 500 and Dow futures plunged more than 20% from their peak on Monday. In the two sessions after Trump’s tariff decision, the S&P 500 has tumbled 10.5%, erasing nearly $5 trillion in market value, marking its most significant two-day loss since March 2020. Meanwhile, Trump told reporters late on Sunday that investors must endure the consequences and that he would refrain from negotiating with China until the US trade deficit is addressed.

Read more …

Chinese industry without American consumers is not a pretty picture.

China Vows To ‘Fight Till The End’ Against Trump’s Tariffs (RT)

China’s Commerce Ministry has warned Washington against entering a never-ending spiral of tit-for-tat trade restrictions, after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose additional tariffs on Chinese imports. Last week, the US president announced sweeping new tariffs on imports from around the world, including a 34% duty on Chinese goods. In response, Beijing vowed to retaliate with a proportional 34% tariff increase on American exports – prompting Trump to threaten further escalation. Beijing condemned the growing trade war as a form of “economic bullying,” with the Commerce Ministry promising on Tuesday to take firm countermeasures to protect China’s national interests.

“China will fight till the end if the US side is bent on going down the wrong path,” a ministry spokesperson said, as quoted by Xinhua. Trump has defended what he calls “reciprocal tariffs” – which range from 10% to 49% on imports from all countries – as a necessary step to eliminate the US trade deficit. He argues the tariffs will make foreign goods less attractive for American consumers, while pressuring international partners to open their markets to US exports. In a post on Truth Social Monday, Trump warned that not only China, but any country that dares to retaliate “will be immediately met with new and substantially higher tariffs.”

The intensifying global trade war has already rattled financial markets. According to Bloomberg, more than $10 trillion has been wiped off global equities as of Monday. Bitcoin dropped below $75,000 for the first time in five months, while most of the top 100 altcoins fell by 15% or more. Meanwhile, JPMorgan raised the odds of a US and global recession to 60% by year-end, up from a previous estimate of 40%. Trump defended his actions, stating that “sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something,” and promised that jobs and investment would return to the United States, making it “wealthy like never before.”

Read more …

Come to the table! We need to talk.

Trump Threatens China With Extra 50% Tariff (RT)

President Donald Trump has threatened to slap an additional 50% tariff on all Chinese imports, unless Beijing recalls its proposed retaliatory 34% levy hike in another escalation of the trade war that has wiped trillions of dollars from stock markets. Last week, the US president rolled out sweeping tariffs ranging from 10% to 49% on imports from all countries. These included a further 34% duty on imports from China, on top of the existing 20% enacted in the months prior. Beijing has announced it will retaliate with a 34% levy hike on US goods by Thursday. “If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long term trading abuses by tomorrow, April 8, 2025, the United States will impose ADDITIONAL Tariffs on China of 50%, effective April 9,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

The US president also threatened to cancel all scheduled talks with China, and instead begin “negotiations with other countries.” Beijing has condemned the tariffs as a “typical move of unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying.” “It will hurt the US itself as well as others,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a press conference on Monday. Washington’s levies will hit developing countries especially hard, and will also disrupt global trade and logistics, he added. China has lodged a complaint with the World Trade Organization in response to the US tariffs.

Additionally, the Chinese Commerce Ministry has imposed new restrictions aimed at American firms, as well as restrictions on the export of domestic rare-earth minerals. Currently, the US obtains some 70% of the rare-earths it imports from China.The escalating trade war between the two superpowers has led to market turbulence and wiped out more than $10 trillion from global equity markets as of Monday, according to Bloomberg.

Read more …

“..for industrial goods..”

EU Offers US a ‘Zero-for-Zero’ Tariff Plan To Avoid A Trade War (JTN)

The European Union on Monday proposed a ‘zero-for-zero’ tariff plan to the U.S. The offer was made by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, following President Donald Trump last week placing a 20% tariff on the EU. “We have offered zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods as we have successfully done with many other trading partners,” Leyen said during a joint press conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store. She said that Europe has always been ready for a good deal regarding tariffs, according to the news outlet Politico.

Meanwhile, the EU’s 27 trade ministers met in Luxembourg to discuss the U.S. measures and to come up with an alternative plan. The plan by the commission, which coordinates EU trade policy, is in specific response to Trump’s earlier steel and aluminum tariffs rather than the broader, more-recently announced reciprocal levies, according to Reuters. But the consensus among the countries appears challenging, considering the leaders each have their own domestic considerations. Among the EU leaders who appear most eager to retaliate are French President Emmanuel Macron, who is calling Trump’s tariffs “brutal and unfounded.”

Read more …

Will Trump split up Europe? Separate deal for Italy first?

The European Union Just Caved on Trump’s Tariffs (Margolis)

While the left and their media allies urge panic over Trump’s tariffs and the market response, reality is telling a different story — countries are folding fast. Now even the European Union is signaling it’s ready to deal. On Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU is open to negotiations with the United States and has proposed eliminating tariffs on industrial goods altogether. At a press conference in Brussels, von der Leyen underscored the damaging effects of the current tariffs and made it clear the EU is prepared to negotiate. These tariffs come first and foremost at immense costs for U.S. consumers and businesses, but at the same time, they have a massive impact on the global economy,” she announced. “Especially hard-hit are the developing countries. And this is a major turning point for the United States.”

She continued, “Nonetheless, we stand ready to negotiate with the United States. Indeed, we have offered zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods, as we have successfully done with many other trading partners. Because Europe is always ready for a good deal, so we keep it on the table.” This is huge news, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that Trump’s trade strategy is paying off. For years, he’s warned that so-called “free trade” has left the United States at a disadvantage, and now—unlike past presidents—he’s actually doing something about it. And it’s not just the European Union signaling a willingness to negotiate. Just days after President Trump launched sweeping reciprocal tariffs — an effort the administration has dubbed “Liberation Day” — over 50 countries have already stepped forward to open talks and avoid the new penalties.

“We already have 50 — five-zero — countries that have come to the table over the last few days, over the last weeks, that are willing and desperate to talk to us,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday. “We are the economic engine of the world, and it’s finally time that someone, President Trump, stood up for America.” As expected, critics on the left are sounding the alarm, but Rollins dismissed the outrage as typical partisan theatrics. She made it clear that the real goal is to restore the American economy by prioritizing U.S. goods and industry.

Rollins defended the tariffs as a necessary course correction after decades of failed trade policy that has hurt American farmers and workers. She pointed to countries like Mexico and Australia, which have blocked key U.S. exports, and argued that these foreign tariffs have gone unchecked for far too long. When pressed about the long-term future of the tariffs, Rollins emphasized they’re part of a broader national security strategy to bring jobs back home and rebuild the country’s industrial base — a vision that goes all the way back to America’s founding. “This is about putting America first,” she said, stressing that the strategy goes beyond tariffs to include deregulation, tax cuts, and energy independence as core pillars of the president’s plan.

Read more …

“The EU’s economic biceps – especially Germany’s – look more like a middle-aged accountant’s than those of a powerlifter.”

The Art of (No) Deal: Can The EU Stand Up To Trump’s Tariffs? (Marsden)

The EU is putting on its bravest face, with European Commission President – and the bloc’s de facto unelected monarch in all but crown – Ursula von der Leyen declaring the bloc is fully equipped to weather US President Donald Trump’s latest tariff tantrum – a fresh 20% slap on EU imports. Markets were clearly moved by this rousing display of confidence – so much so that the Euro Stoxx 50, the Eurozone’s top blue-chip index, is currently tracing a pattern that closely resembles that of a skydiver who forgot to pack a parachute. “Europe holds a lot of cards. From trade to technology, to the size of our market. But this strength is also built on our readiness to take firm countermeasures,” von der Leyen said. Ah yes, the EU’s strength is so formidable that Brussels had to advise citizens to share showers to conserve energy after decisively cutting off Russian fuel – only to later import it discreetly, like a teenager sneaking in past curfew.

Can the average EU citizen expect more of the same kind of ‘firm countermeasures’ their leaders are famous for? Like the one that mandated twist-off bottle caps to be tethered to the bottle so you get hit in the face with every sip in order to spare the earth from being crushed under the weight of rogue caps that managed to escape their fate en route to the recycling depot. Or the kind of countermeasures that attempt to stick it to Russia by trying to regulate the temperature that Europeans should tolerate to reduce energy use. Because nothing says ‘take that, Putin!’ like sweltering during a summer heatwave inside a 27C office. “Unity is our strength,” Queen Ursula reiterated, throwing down her favorite mantra. Because, apparently, unity is the magical solution to all challenges. And also a euphemism for unquestioningly following the whims of whatever lunacy her reality-detached battalion of bureaucrats concocts.

The resounding success of this approach must be why there totally isn’t stalled GDP growth, an industrial sector limping along, and a sputtering economy even before these tariffs came into play. Tag-teaming Trump alongside Ursula was German Economy Minister Robert Habeck, who seems to think the EU is locked in an intense geopolitical arm-wrestling match with the US president, saying that “pressure now needs to be unfolded” against Trump “from Germany, from Europe in alliance with other countries, and then we will see who is the stronger one in this arm wrestle.” He may as well have just whipped it out and slammed it down on the table while he was at it. His arm, I mean. The hitch? The EU’s economic biceps – especially Germany’s – look more like a middle-aged accountant’s than those of a powerlifter. But sure, flex away. Seems the EU has found itself a new external foe to blame for its economic struggles: America.

They’ve been wringing their hands about Russian influence, worried about China’s rise, and now, surprise! Their latest villain is their self-proclaimed best friend. So what’s their big flex going to be? Well, French President Emmanuel Macron is leading the charge for French and European companies to stop investing in the US. “It is important that future investments, the investments announced over the last few weeks, should be put on hold for some time until we have clarified things with the United States of America,” Macron said. “What message would we send by having major European players investing billions of euros in the American economy at a time when [the US] are hitting us?” What message indeed? That Europe stands for a totally unfettered market economy, free from government interference, meddling, and control? Yeah, that must be it.

The EU’s major economies were already struggling long before Trump’s tariffs came along, as a result of the bloc’s own actions, egged on not by Trump but by the Biden administration, who they considered their best pals. Germany’s industrial sector is contracting. France is seeing massive layoffs. Germany’s DHL Group, the logistics company, is cutting 8,000 jobs alone. But yeah, let’s definitely have European businesses take advice from the same people who led them into this mess, on how to get out of it. It’s like getting fire safety tips from an arsonist right after he tosses a match at your living room curtains. The EU sanctioned itself into this mess with its anti-Russian policies, all while getting a friendly thumbs-up from Washington. And now, Washington under Trump is just dropping the charade and openly prioritizing American interests – except this time, in a way that pulls the rug out from under globalism. So Brussels is left standing in the cold, wondering why Uncle Sam isn’t holding its hand anymore.

Read more …

“We are watching the geopolitical and economic world as we knew it being re-routed in very short order – in days and not decades..”

Trump’s Tariff Gamble Could Plunge Planet Into New Great Depression (Sp.)

Global markets are in turmoil in the wake of President Trump’s announcement of steep new tariffs against most of the world. Combined with massive debt and rising geopolitical tensions, the tariff wars have left more than a few observers drawing worrying historical parallels. “We are at the top of a huge, great debt and credit bubble. And that’s very, very similar to the situation in the late 1920s,” independent economist Alasdair Macleod told Sputnik. “In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law by President Hoover. It was the combination of the credit bubble bursting, plus the effect of the tariffs, which imposed a minimum tariff of 20% on all US imports that led to the collapse of the stock market and the Depression,” Macleod warned.

In some ways, the situation now is “even worse,” according to the observer, “because the bubble is far bigger than we saw in 1929. And not only that, but Trump’s tariffs are far worse than Smoot-Hawley because it’s on top of earlier tariffs.” “Every rally, however sharp (and bear market rallies tend to be very aggressive) gets met with another wave of selling, telling us that the leverage community and indeed others, the more long-term players, are still looking to exit positions,” ADM Investor Services chief economist Marc Ostwald said, commenting on the roller coaster in the markets in the wake of the tariff announcement. The situation is characterized by hopes that one of three power players: big banks, the Fed or the administration will intervene to return stability, Ostwald says, with an infusion of mobilized bank capital, an emergency rate cut by the Fed, or a decision to relent by Trump needed to arrest the volatility.

The problem, Ostwald says, is there are no signs by Trump of readiness to back down, while the Fed is “not sure where the greatest threat lies…inflation or that businesses basically shut up shops, stop hiring people, start laying people off, stop making orders or something else?” “We can expect turmoil to continue even while the markets get used to that turmoil and it becomes the new normal,” veteran financial analyst Paul Goncharoff says, commenting on the Trump tariff salvo. “We will still have inflation, recession will visit us all, hard assets will replace soft money, dedollarization may in fact quicken, and the heightened military tension we see around us will not fully disappear until some understanding between the China and America contingents are reached,” the Goncharoff LCC director says. “There are two players at the high table – China and the United States. The surrounding noisy gaggle of countries are important yet in fact secondary players. We are watching the geopolitical and economic world as we knew it being re-routed in very short order – in days and not decades,” Goncharoff explained.

Read more …

Ackman gets cold feet.

Bill Ackman: World Is On Brink Of ‘Self-induced Economic Nuclear Winter’ (NYP)

Billionaire fund manager Bill Ackman, a staunch President Trump ally, has warned the world is on the brink of a “self-induced economic nuclear winter” – as he begged the commander in chief to pause his sweeping tariffs. “The President has an opportunity on Monday to call a time out and have the time to execute on fixing an unfair tariff system. Alternatively, we are heading for a self-induced, economic nuclear winter, and we should start hunkering down,” Ackman wrote in a lengthy X post Sunday night. “May cooler heads prevail.” Ackman, who endorsed Trump’s run for President, issued the stark warning as he insisted the US leader’s decision to enforce the 10% tax on imports was quickly losing the confidence of business leaders worldwide.

“The country is 100% behind the president on fixing a global system of tariffs that has disadvantaged the country. But, business is a confidence game and confidence depends on trust,” he wrote. “President [Trump] has elevated the tariff issue to the most important geopolitical issue in the world, and he has gotten everyone’s attention. So far, so good. “And yes, other nations have taken advantage of the U.S. by protecting their home industries at the expense of millions of our jobs and economic growth in our country,” he continued. “But, by placing massive and disproportionate tariffs on our friends and our enemies alike and thereby launching a global economic war against the whole world at once, we are in the process of destroying confidence in our country as a trading partner, as a place to do business, and as a market to invest capital. “

Calling for a 90-day time-out, Ackman urged Trump to renegotiate the “unfair asymmetric tariff deals.” He warned, too, that launching an “economic nuclear war” would only see businesses grind to a halt, as well as consumers closing up their wallets. “What CEO and what board of directors will be comfortable making large, long-term, economic commitments in our country in the middle of an economic nuclear war?” he said. “When markets crash, new investment stops, consumers stop spending money, and businesses have no choice but to curtail investment and fire workers. And it is not just the big companies that will suffer. Small and medium size businesses and entrepreneurs will experience much greater pain. Almost no business can pass through an overnight massive increase in costs to their customers.”

“The consequences for our country and the millions of our citizens who have supported the president — in particular low-income consumers who are already under a huge amount of economic stress — are going to be severely negative. This is not what we voted for,” he added. Trump has previously touted the tariffs as a negotiation ploy to improve US trade and bring in more revenue. But he has also dropped hints that the steep levies may be permanent — sparking fears of an all-out trade war. Ackman’s grim outlook came as Trump’s sweeping tariff plans continued to hammer global financial markets on Monday after he warned foreign governments they would have to pay “a lot of money” to lift the levies that he called “medicine.”

Read more …

sundance: “The remarks were ‘Full force Big Ugly‘ and the winnamins were flying off the shelves for 15 straight minutes. I could not be more proud of our president.”

Trump Impromptu Remarks Discussing Tariffs and Trade Reset with Media (CTH)

President Trump smartly remained quiet after delivering the economic thunder-shock with his national security tariffs and new global trade expectations. Now President Trump takes questions from the media about the initial reactions to the seismic event he created. “China needs to solve the problem of the trade deficit we have with them,” is codespeak for China needs to open their markets to U.S. companies that have already established a footprint, AND China needs to purchase U.S. goods. Despite the size of China, President Trump knows Beijing will never comply in earnest, so he gives the Panda a few words, but doesn’t give it too much time until the Dragon comes out from behind the mask. President Trump notes he has “spoken to a lot of leaders from Europe and Asia” this weekend.

However, now is that powerful moment in any negotiation when the principal has clearly outlined his position, then remain silent as the opposition responds. The “tariffs are instituted, they are not going away,” Trump said. When questioned about having a “threshold” of “pain he is willing to tolerate,” President Trump notes the “question is stupid.” We are responding to opposition who are playing a zero-sum game, there is no level of pain too intolerable when ultimately your survival as a nation is at stake. Either we do, and win – or, we do not and die, that is our current status. When questioned about having a zero-tariff agreement with Europe, President Trump references the scale of the imbalance. “There’s no talk possible” with the EU unless they acquiesce. Every country wants to make a deal, but “this is not sustainable” President Trump repeats.

When questioned about Tik Tok, President Trump notes there was a likely deal with China, but then Beijing responded to the tariffs and said the deal around the social media platform ownership was no longer possible. Trump doesn’t care, he wants a TikTok deal; but ultimately, the tariffs are more important. President Trump then weaves through the Russia conflict, bombs are still bad, and the Middle east conflict, Gaza is still full of terrorists, and moves directly into domestic national security. President Trump then reaffirms he has not agreed to reduce, soften or smooth any tariffs against any nation. The tariffs are in place, they will remain in place, and the global trade reset will continue until America wins. Period. The remarks were ‘Full force Big Ugly‘ and the winnamins were flying off the shelves for 15 straight minutes. I could not be more proud of our president.

Read more …

“Ah, the delicious smell of peak fear on Sunday/Monday…and max NOISE on X.” —Raoul Pal

Farewell, Fugazy! (James Howard Kunstler)

That ruckus you hear in the capital markets is the sickening howl of the Fugazy Economy meeting its extinction. Fugazy means fake, unreal, dishonest, misaligned to what societies need to thrive. Fugazy means mis-using the time-value of things that purport to be wealth to multiply fake wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. The pernicious effects of that system are visible all across the ruined landscape of our country, a nation of broken cities, failed towns, and a demoralized populace. Mr. Trump apparently aims to convert the expiring Fugazy economy into a production economy — yikes! — based on making things of value, and perhaps more importantly, of people at all social levels having meaningful roles in the making and moving of things.

The Trump tariffs are the first big step in a process that is already generating a whole lot of friction, heat, and ferment. The aim of the tariffs is straightforward: the end of a trade regime that punishes and cripples American production. The response so far is heartening. Many other countries suddenly seek new trade arrangements with the USA, correctly sensing that Mr. Trump means bidness. (This ain’t no Mud Club. . . this ain’t no foolin’ around. . . .) It’s even possible that these readjustments will happen so swiftly that the tariff differentials will be a wash before summer, and everybody will be, at least, on a firm footing, knowing what the clear new rules say. This new disposition of things required forceful incentives to change entrenched, harmful practices.

Another angle on this process is the dynamic known as import-replacement. It means exactly what it sounds like: where you used to get stuff from other lands, you now make it here. It should be obvious that this can’t be accomplished overnight. But the question is: okay, when are you going to start? Part of the answer is: we can’t afford to put it off any longer. There’s an awful lot of stuff, from machine tools to pharmaceuticals to military equipment that we had better start making again — or else slide into collapse, perhaps even slavery to other powers. That process starts with deploying real capital — as opposed to Fugazy capital — to re-start businesses and industries. That will take money away from hedge funds and other rackets that exist to play games with evermore abstract layers of things that only pretend to represent money. As that occurs, a lot of pretend money will vanish. Don’t be too shocked by this. That’s what happens when a society bends back toward reality: you start sorting out the real money from the fake money. That’s why the price of gold keeps marching up.

I sense that Mr. Trump and his colleagues knew full-well that the tariff play would rattle the markets badly, that these “corrections” are an unavoidable consequence, and are better gotten-over as quickly as possible. What else would you expect in a system that has dedicated itself for decades to mis-pricing the value of just about everything? The snap-back is sure to be harsh. The psychopathocracy that drives the Global Left lost more traction last week in its quest to keep all of its old rackets running. Their foot-soldiers in the USA have been defunded effectively by Mr. Musk’s DOGE, starting with the immense network of rackets that were run around the USAID program. The Woke NGOs are no more and the fat paychecks are no longer going out to the nose-ring-for-lunch-bunch who came to infest the DC Beltway — and their satellite offices in Democratic Party controlled cities.

Hence, the feeble turn-outs in last weekend’s street actions. The Baby Boomers have gone especially psychotic. That’s why there are so many old folks waving those Soros-made placards in the astroturfed crowds of the “Hands-off” protests. After an eighty-year run of the most mind-blowing comfort and convenience enjoyed by any generation in world history, America’s Boomers stare into the abyss of their fading Fugazy fortunes as their stock portfolios tank. Kind of too bad. Maybe you shouldn’t have gone along for the ride. Maybe you should have cared for your country a bit more.

Read more …

They called him back but still want to stick to the “procedure”, separate cases for each individual. There is no space or time for that in the system.

Supreme Court Slapdown of Judge Boasberg Sends Message To Federal Judges (JTN)

The Supreme Court decision reversing U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s block on President Donald Trump’s deportation of gang members under the Alien Enemies Act sent a stern message to federal judges nationwide that overreach and venue shopping won’t be tolerated. The Trump administration has witnessed a record number of temporary restraining orders (TROs) against its policies, with lower-level federal judges imposing sweeping blocks on executive actions, notably those involving immigration. The Department of Justice has repeatedly urged the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of federal injunctions or to clarify the extent of lower court judges’ authority to interfere in executive branch operations. In a 5-4 decision, the justices opted Monday both to overturn the Boasberg order halting Trump’s enforcement of the AEA, but also declared the D.C. District of Columbia an inappropriate venue for the case in light of the gang member’s detention in Texas.

They did, however, assert that the Venezuelans in custody had the right to challenge their deportations. “Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas,” the judges wrote. “The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.” “For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal,” they added. “The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement.”

Texas courts are part of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative courts in the nation. The change of venue represents a partial win for Trump as the courts are far more likely to be receptive to government arguments on immigration authority. The need for due process, however, will slow the deportation process to a degree. Trump had hoped to use the AEA to speedily remove members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which gained notoriety in 2024 for its takeover of several apartment complexes in Colorado. Trump did notch a bonus win, however, after Chief Justice John Roberts blocked a deadline Boasberg imposed to repatriate an illegal alien from Venezuela whom the administration sent to El Salvador. Trump allies acknowledged that the decision represented a victory, but stopped short of celebrating in light of its limited scope.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Just the News that “this ruling provides only a temporary reprieve in one case among many where partisan Federal District Court judges are throwing up roadblocks to frustrate President Trump’s efforts to honor his campaign promise to secure the border and deport illegal immigrants. “It’s welcome, but the Supreme Court needs to do far more to rein in district judges who are exceeding their constitutional authority,” he added. Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, moreover, opined that “[i]t looks like SCOTUS will rule that Trump has broad substantive power to deport but he must exercise that power within due process constraints.” The decisions on Monday represent one of the first actions from the nation’s nine justices to chastise lower courts over forum shopping and the excessive issuance of TROs.

Read more …

“..an “unacceptable” instance of judicial overreach that damages “the president’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.” “It’s a red line, and that’s the reason I have called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg. I have called for the Trump administration to ignore his order. I’ve never done this before..”

Conservative Legal Scholars Debate Response to Liberal Judges’ Overreach (DS)

Prominent conservative legal scholars on Monday debated the proper legal response to liberal federal judges’ injunctions against actions by the Trump administration. From legislation that would alter the judiciary’s powers to introducing articles of impeachment, the commentators offered varying solutions to the current controversy over the separation of powers in a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation. Central to the discussion was Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg’s injunction against deportation flights leaving the United States, which the panelists unanimously criticized. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley was in the camp of urging Congress and the White House to refrain from combating the judiciary too fiercely. “Where I’ve been critical of the administration is often on the rhetoric, and I think it has committed some unforced errors,” said Turley. “They’ve got to really pick the hills to fight on.”

The judicial scholars at a panel discussion Monday were unanimously critical of federal Judge James Boasberg’s injunctions against the Trump administration. Turley added that he does not support impeaching judges, and that he thinks the legal system will sort out judicial overreach. A number of members of the House of Representatives have already introduced articles of impeachment against judges who have issued injunctions against Trump administration actions. “I also don’t agree with limiting jurisdiction or limiting funds. I believe we have the world’s greatest judicial system, and it’s working. Injunctions have been lifted. The Supreme Court just recently again ruled in favor of the Trump administration,” Turley said.

Additionally, the GWU law professor warned against what he sees as a dangerous precedent of ignoring court rulings, which would likely continue in future administrations. However, Mike Davis, the president of the conservative advocacy group Article III Project, disagreed with Turley. Davis argued that the scope of injunctions was so beyond the norm that impeachments were necessary. Davis spoke at length of Boasberg’s order for American deportation flights to be returned to the United States. He described that as an “unacceptable” instance of judicial overreach that damages “the president’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.” “It’s a red line, and that’s the reason I have called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg. I have called for the Trump administration to ignore his order. I’ve never done this before” he said. “This is a very serious matter for the judiciary’s legitimacy.”

One point of agreement uniting all of the panelists, however, was that the judges were in the wrong for their far-reaching rulings. Turley indicated he was open to supporting legislation that would require more than one judge to sign off on national injunctions against a president’s executive orders. “I would like to see, at a minimum, any class action have to go through a separate three-judge panel with very narrow conditions, under which a national injunction can be held. I would also like to see Congress collapse the time for appeal,” Turley said. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., have introduced legislation that would require that nationwide injunctions be approved by a three-judge panel.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, agreed with the case for allowing Congress to limit judges’ authority and requiring multiple rulings for there to be a nationwide injunction. He alluded to laws passed by Congress during the Civil Rights Movement to enforce equal voting laws, arguing that these establish a precedent for the proposed legislation. “When the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 … they didn’t trust some of the federal judges in the Southern courts who had been put forward by the Democratic Party, that they would rule the right way on certain voting cases, and so they set up a system of a three-judge panel … and so, we’ve done this before. It’s something that could be done again.”

Read more …

Time to tighten the rules.

Members of Congress Must Be Present to Represent (Young)

President Donald Trump’s win in November was so sweeping of a mandate that Republicans won control of both the House and Senate. Control of Congress is critical to moving Trump’s vast America First agenda forward—and because of the slim majority held by Republicans in the House of Representatives, one would hope they’re working together in lockstep on behalf of the American people. Over the past week, however, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., was forced to delay critical votes in the House over a proposal to let members vote from home. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., led a small group of Republicans and all Democrats, to change House rules to allow proxy voting for members of Congress who are new or expecting mothers. Fortunately, it appears this saga is now over. Johnson and Luna reportedly struck a deal Sunday that won’t trigger her discharge petition. But let this be a lesson for members of Congress, who shouldn’t be tempted to pursue proxy voting anytime soon.

Quite frankly, proxy voting should never be on the table for members of Congress. Their entire job is to show up to work and vote for the people they represent—which they only do on average of around 160 days a year. The first issue anyone should have with this issue is the slippery slope it presents. Once the bell is rung on proxy voting for motherhood, it is clear as day where the expansion of permission to vote from home leads. Pregnancy is a medical issue, and the next step for proxy voting will be any “serious medical issue.” Then it will be any medical issue with a doctor’s note (that will stretch to include emotional issues like depression or anxiety). Eventually, it will accommodate senior citizen status. If by that point there are members still showing up to work, the next landing on the slippery slope will be major issues in a member’s district; then it will be any issues in their district—and at that point, everyone will be able to vote via text message.

The second issue, which should offend all Americans, is that just a few short weeks after Trump required all federal workers to return to office, members of Congress are advocating for themselves to work from home. If Republicans justifiably want workers who are paid by taxpayers to return to their offices, they should be expected do the same. The third issue is that thousands of mothers—in congressional districts across this country—don’t get to work by proxy. Some mothers labor at multiple jobs to raise a family and others don’t get paid time off or maternity leave. Those afforded the privilege of being a member of Congress already receive a generous $174,000 salary and on-site child care center, and most have a spouse able to take care of their children while in Washington. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s daughter, Evita Duffy-Alfonso, contrasted congressional proxy voting with her father’s actions while serving as a representative from Wisconsin:

When my baby sister was born with two holes in her heart and needed a very risky surgery, my father, @SecDuffy knew he needed be at home with his newborn daughter, my mother, and my eight siblings. So my dad resigned. What he did not do was demand an unconstitutional exception that would allow him to vote remotely. He viewed his job in Congress as a responsibility and a privilege, not an entitlement. If you are unable to fulfill the duties required of a member of Congress because you are a parent of a small child, feel free to resign. Many have before. My final issue with this proxy voting proposal is that members of Congress need to think about their country before themselves. At the time of the 2024 election, America was at the brink of self-destruction with the Biden administration’s wide-open southern border, illegal aliens potentially voting in our elections, failed energy and economic policies, DEI ruining equality for all—and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Imagine for a second you were elected and given the privilege to help lead the golden age of America with Trump—one of a few hundred entrusted to save this country. The American people expect you to be present, not vote by proxy. Those who support letting new parents vote by proxy are getting caught up in the emotional aspect of it—but that’s not what this is ultimately about. The Democrats who took full advantage of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s allowing proxy voting during the COVID pandemic would lick their chops at making it permanent. Republicans shouldn’t be tempted to go along with the idea—now or later. Johnson was right to hold the line, and it’s a good thing that the House will now be able to once again move forward to enact Trump’s America First agenda.

Read more …

Does WEF have a future?

World Economic Forum Founder Klaus Schwab To Also Step Down As Chairman (JTN)

World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab told his staff and the company’s board of trustees this week that he will step down as the organization’s chairman after creating and leading it for five decades. His departure comes after the board investigated allegations of racism and gender-bias against women in the Forum’s workplace, which was first reported last year by the Wall Street Journal. Schwab and the Forum have denied the allegations. Schwab, who announced his plans to step down as executive chairman in May of last year, but remained on as non-executive chairman of the board, did not give a reason for his departure, but a spokesperson for the WEF told the Wall Street Journal that the organization is already beginning its search for a new chairperson and expects the full process will be completed by January 2027.

Schwab, author of The Great Reset, is viewed by many conservatives as the ultimate globalist, which made President Donald Trump’s speech at the WEF’s annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland, just days after he was inaugurated to his second term as president this past January, must see TV. The chairman’s departure is not the first change that the WEF has made to its leadership recently. The Wall Street Journal reported that the organization is also losing its chief legal officer Nicola Port, and technology and digital services head Malte Godbersen. The exit comes shortly after World Economic Forum CEO Børge Brende said that he is committed to addressing the leadership issues identified by the workplace investigation, which did not substantiate the allegations against its founder. “Over these past months, we have taken time—time to pause, to listen, and to reflect,” Brende said in the memo announcing the executive changes. “This period of reflection has been grounded in a desire not just to do things differently, but to do them better.”

Read more …

They will fail.

EU Looking To Replace Musk’s Starlink In Ukraine – Politico (RT)

Kiev’s European backers want to replace Elon Musk’s Starlink in Ukraine but no local provider can take its place, Politico reported on Monday, citing French-British satellite operator Eutelsat. Brussels is concerned that the tech tycoon could shut down the service and disrupt Ukrainian military communications, according to the outlet. Musk, a major ally of US President Donald Trump and CEO of SpaceX, which operates Starlink, has donated more than 40,000 satellite internet terminals to Kiev since 2022. Ukrainian troops have come to depend heavily on the system in combat operations. SpaceX has also provided access to Starshield, a more secure, military-grade version of the network. While Vladimir Zelensky’s government initially viewed Musk as a key supporter, the relationship soured as the tech tycoon grew more critical of Kiev’s war effort.

Tensions deepened after Musk denied Ukraine’s request to activate Starlink over Crimea, Russia, reportedly thwarting a drone attack against Russian ships. Last month, Musk wrote on X that “the Starlink system is the backbone of the Ukrainian army,” warning that “their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off.” Politico reported that EU officials now view Musk’s growing criticism of Ukraine as a threat to Starlink’s reliability. Brussels is reportedly in talks with several companies to find alternatives, including French-British satellite operator Eutelsat. CEO Eva Berneke confirmed to the news outlet discussions over EU funding for shipping user kits to Ukraine and expanding satellite launches to boost capacity. “[Working with Starlink] is a dependence that can be decided in the White House or Mar-a-Lago. It’s good to have multiple options,” Berneke told the outlet.

She acknowledged, however, that no provider is close to matching Starlink’s scale. It operates around 7,000 satellites, compared to Eutelsat’s 600. Depending on the scenario, Starlink offers 23 to 490 times more capacity over Ukraine. “If we were to take over the entire connectivity capacity for Ukraine and all the citizens, we wouldn’t be able to do that,” she said. European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier confirmed the initiative, telling Politico that “discussions are indeed ongoing at [the] EU level, with the member states and with the industry.” Starlink operates through low-Earth orbit satellites, which offer high-speed, low-latency connections essential for battlefield coordination and drone warfare. Since 2019, Starlink has dominated the satellite internet market, launching more satellites than any competitor. While rivals such as Eutelsat, Amazon’s Project Kuiper, and Canada’s Telesat have recently stepped up investment, they remain far behind, making it unlikely the EU could offer a realistic substitute, the news outlet said.

Read more …

That’s just immensely sad. Would it have been the same if they hadn’t self-immolated their economy?

Germany To Prepare Children For War – Handelsblatt (RT)

The German Interior Ministry is advising schools to prepare children for crises and war, the Handelsblatt newspaper reported on Monday, citing a ministry spokesperson. A raft of calls for “civic readiness” have been made by Western European governments since US president Donald Trump took office and the beginning of US-brokered Ukraine peace talks, described by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as “deadlocked.”. “Given the recent developments in the security situation, a greater focus should be placed on civil defense, including in school education,” an interior ministry spokesperson told Handelsblatt. According to the outlet, a Russian attack on NATO territory “in four to seven years” is considered “a realistic scenario” by German military, the Bundeswehr.

Schoolchildren should be “prepared for the worst,” crisis response training should be introduced into school curricula, and emergency supplies should be stored in every home, the German ministry spokesperson reportedly proposed. Moscow has repeatedly rubbished the claim it could attack a NATO country, since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict three years ago. However such “civic readiness’ calls have been made across the EU and in the UK in the last week. The European Commission has recently recommended that EU citizens stockpile essential supplies, including food and water, to sustain themselves for at least three days in case of emergencies.

Poland and Norway have reinstated Cold-War-era measures such as bomb shelters and bunkers and mass military training. Sweden and Finland already have guides available to citizens on how to respond if they come under attack. On Monday, the Kremlin said Russia was open to discussing a full ceasefire to end the Ukraine conflict, as long as there are guarantees that Kiev will abide by it. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump held a phone conversation last month, following which Moscow agreed to a 30-day moratorium on strikes targeting energy infrastructure, with Ukraine also signing off on the proposal. Moscow, however, has since accused Kiev of repeatedly violating the agreement while stating it will honor it anyway.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1909281482637508718

 

 

Owls

 

 

Dog&kitten
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1909274661470285972

 

 

Dire wolf

 

 

Art
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1908910561447850072

 

 

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

 

 

 

Apr 052025
 
 April 5, 2025  Posted by at 9:57 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  41 Responses »


Salvador Dali Paranoiac Woman-Horse (Invisible Sleeping Woman, Lion, Horse) 1930

 

Trump: This Is A Great Time To Get Rich (RT)
Why Are People So Angry About Trump’s Tariffs? (Victor Davis Hanson)
Trump’s Tariffs Will Turn EU Economy Into ‘Decaying Corpse’ – Medvedev (RT)
You Wouldn’t Want to Be Him on That Dreadful Day (Kunstler)
John Roberts Needs to Do His Job Already (Skeet)
Trump Nemesis Judge Muses: Who to Hold in Contempt in Deportation Case? (Adams)
Supreme Court Shuts Down Activist Judge (ZH)
Canada Will Lead The World – PM (RT)
Trump HHS Slashes Hundreds of Millions in Woke LGBTQ Grants (DS)
The DOGE Emperor (Spencer)
Trump’s Inner Circle Opposes New Putin Call – NBC News (RT)
Zelensky Contradicts Trump On NATO Membership (RT)
‘Free Le Pen’ – Trump to France (RT)
Yes, Trump Could Serve a Third Term. Law Professor Explains How (Allen)
Larry Fink Believes He Will Win Over Control Of The Panama Canal (Gasparino)
Trump Extends TikTok Deadline 75 Days, As He Tries To Close Deal (JTN)
EU Could Fine Elon Musk’s X $1B Over Illicit Content, Disinformation (CT)

 

 

 

 

My job

Yield

Gracias
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1908220062496133399

Crash

Ratna

O’Leary

Dmitriev

Fall in Line
https://twitter.com/Jules31415/status/1907857369586901222

 

 

 

 

Amazing to see how many people claim to know Trump’s tariffs will lead to utter disaster. Nobody knows, it’s never been tried before. Give it time. He’s had decades to actively think about, and he’s convinced it will be fine. Why else would he do it?

Why does the press never report that the end of income tax is also part of the plan?

Trump: This Is A Great Time To Get Rich (RT)

US President Donald Trump has defended his controversial decision to impose sweeping tariffs on the majority of America’s trading partners. The move announced earlier this week has shocked global markets and sparked a backlash from world leaders. “To the many investors coming into the United States and investing massive amounts of money, my policies will never change. This is a great time to get rich, richer than ever before!!!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. The president remained defiant, even as the US stock market suffered its worst crash since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, with the Dow plunging 2,231 points on Friday, according to CNN. US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that it was “now becoming clear that the tariff increases will be significantly larger than expected.”

“While tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation, it is also possible that the effects could be more persistent,” Powell added. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt denied that the restrictions would hurt US businesses. “There’s not going to be any pain for American-owned companies and American workers, because their jobs are going to come back home, and again, as for prices, President Trump is working on tax cuts to put more money back into the pockets of Americans,” she told NewsNation on Thursday. On April 2, Trump announced a 10% baseline tariff on all imports and additional “reciprocal” duties on dozens of countries he said had an unfair trade imbalance with the US. The president argued that many nations were “ripping off” American citizens through “harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes.”

China has reacted by imposing a 34% tariff on American goods, matching Trump’s levy on Chinese products. The EU has condemned the US tariffs and vowed to adopt “further countermeasures” in response. Canada said it would counter Trump’s “series of unwarranted and unjustified tariffs” with a 25% levy on cars imported from the US. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the head of the World Trade Organization, said that an all-out trade war would be “destructive for the global economy.” She warned that the tariffs lead to a contraction of around 1% of global merchandise trade.

Read more …

“..don’t you find it very ironic that Wall Street is blaming the Trump tariffs for heading us into a recession, if not depression, when the only great depression we’ve ever had was not caused by tariffs but by Wall Street?

Why Are People So Angry About Trump’s Tariffs? (Victor Davis Hanson)

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. April 3, President Donald Trump announced it as “Liberation Day.” And by that he meant we were going to be liberated from asymmetrical tariffs of the last 50 years. And it was going to inaugurate a new what he called “golden age” of trade parity, greater investment in the United States, but mostly, greater job opportunities and higher-paying jobs for Americans. And yet, the world seemed to erupt in anger. It was very strange. Even people on the libertarian right and, of course, the left were very angry. The Wall Street Journal pilloried Donald Trump. But here’s my question. China has prohibitive tariffs, so does Vietnam, so does Mexico, so does Europe. So do a lot of countries. So does India. But if tariffs are so destructive of their economies, why is China booming?

How did India become an economic powerhouse when it has these exorbitant tariffs on American imports? How did Vietnam, of all places, become such a different country even though it has these prohibitive tariffs? Why isn’t Germany, before its energy problems, why wasn’t it a wreck? It’s got tariffs on almost everything that we send them. How is the EU even functioning with these tariffs? I thought tariffs destroyed an economy, but they seem to like them. And they’re angry that they’re no longer asymmetrical. Apparently, people who are tariffing us think tariffs improve their economy. Maybe they’re right. I don’t know. The second thing is, why would you get angry at the person who is reacting to the asymmetrical tariff and not the people who inaugurated the tariff?

Why is Canada mad at us when it’s running a $63 billion surplus and it has tariffs on some American products at 250%. Doesn’t it seem like the people who started this asymmetrical—if I could use the word—trade war should be the culpable people, not the people who are reluctantly reacting to it? Sort of like Ukraine and Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine. Do we blame Ukraine for defending itself and trying to reciprocate? No, we don’t. We don’t blame America because it finally woke up and said, “Whatever they tariff us we’re gonna tariff them.” Which brings up another question: Are our tariffs really tariffs? That is, were they preemptive? Were they leveled against countries that had no tariffs against us? Were they punitive? No. They’re almost leveled on autopilot. Whatever a particular country tariffs us, we reciprocate and just mirror image them.

And they go off anytime that country says, “It was a mistake. We’re sorry. You’re an ally. You’re a neutral. We’re not going to tariff this American product.” And we say, “Fine.” Then the autopilot ceases and the automatic tariff ends. In other words, it’s their choice, not ours. We’re just reacting to what they did, not what we did. Couple of other questions that I’ve had. We haven’t run a trade surplus since 1975—50 years. So, it wasn’t suddenly we woke up and said, “It’s unfair. We want commercial justice.” No. We’ve been watching this happen. For 50 years it’s been going on. And no president, no administration, no Congress in the past has done anything about it. Done anything about what? Leveling tariffs on our products that we don’t level on theirs.

It was all predicated in the postwar period. We were so affluent, so powerful—Europe, China, Russia were in shambles—that we had to take up the burdens of reviving the economy by taking great trade deficits. Fifty years later, we have been deindustrialized. And the countries who did this to us, by these unfair and asymmetrical tariffs, did not fall apart. They did not self-destruct. They apparently thought it was in their self-interest. And if anybody calibrates the recent gross domestic product growth of India or Taiwan or South Korea or Japan, they seem to have some logic to it.

There’s a final irony. The people who are warning us most vehemently about this tariff quote the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. But remember something, that came after the onset of the Depression—after. The stock market crashed in 1929. That law was not passed until 1930. It was not really amplified until ’31. And here’s the other thing that they were, conveniently, not reminded of: We were running a surplus. That was a preemptive punitive tariff, on our part, against other countries. We had a trade surplus. And it was not 10% or 20%. Some of the tariffs were 40% and 50%. And again, it happened after the collapse of the stock market. In conclusion, don’t you find it very ironic that Wall Street is blaming the Trump tariffs for heading us into a recession, if not depression, when the only great depression we’ve ever had was not caused by tariffs but by Wall Street?

Read more …

Seems a likelier prediction than mayhem in the US.

Trump’s Tariffs Will Turn EU Economy Into ‘Decaying Corpse’ – Medvedev (RT)

The US imposition of “reciprocal” tariffs on EU exports has doomed the bloc’s economy, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said. This week, US President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs in an attempt to improve America’s balance of trade, accusing the country’s economic partners of exploiting access to its consumer market through protectionist policies and currency manipulation. Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, remarked on Thursday that while the move seriously disrupts global commerce, Russia will be largely unaffected, as its trade with the US is virtually nonexistent.

“No need for knee-jerk reactions,” he posted on social media. “We should take a seat on the shore and wait for the enemy’s corpse to float by. In this case, the decaying corpse of the EU economy.” The expression, which advises patient inaction, has been attributed by Western authors, including Umberto Eco, to various Eastern sources and may be a misinterpretation of a remark by Chinese philosopher Confucius, which does not mention dead bodies. Outgoing German Economy Minister Robert Habeck has compared the potential impact to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Then too, “something new was happening, and we were not prepared in Europe to cope with the challenge,” he said during a press conference on Thursday. Many other European politicians and media outlets have described the economic fallout from the tariffs as disastrous for member states. Washington, however, has warned that any retaliatory steps would be met with further measures.

Medvedev has previously called out Brussels for being incompetent and irrationally hostile toward Russia. In an effort to punish Moscow over the Ukraine conflict, Brussels has sought to cut off energy imports from the country entirely. The economic bloc has also imposed sweeping sanctions, significantly reducing direct trade. Critics of the policy, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Slovak counterpart, Robert Fico, argue that it has led to a dramatic decline in the competitiveness of EU products, inflicting substantial economic damage.

Read more …

If Trump must fight Roberts, he will.

You Wouldn’t Want to Be Him on That Dreadful Day (Kunstler)

Do you see the pattern? Populist party leaders all over Western Civ getting undone by the law courts —Calin Georgescu in Romania, election cancelled; Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, de-railed by President Lula’s stooge judges (with CIA help); Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia shot-up with five bullets in May last year (survived miraculously); the Alternative-for-Deutschland Party de-platformed by the Scholz-Merz ruling junta; then, this week, Marine Le Pen, leading candidate (by far) for President of France, defenestrated on Mickey Mouse charges in the Paris court. And, of course, since 2015, Mr. Trump, hounded relentlessly, but not yet overthrown, due to sheer pluck and testosterone (the official hated hormone of the Left).

International lawfare is about the last remaining tool in the “Globalist” kit-bag for “color revolution,” which means regime change by underhanded means, election interference being the favorite device. The poster child, of course, was the US CIA / DOD State Department regime change operation in Ukraine, 2014, that ousted Russian-leaning elected President Viktor Yanukovych, eventually leading to the installation of coke-head Volodymyr Zelensky, and ultimately to the Ukraine War that has killed over a million people. These days, astroturf (i.e., fake) street revolution (e.g., Maidan in Kiev 2014) is out; lawfare is in.

By Globalist, let’s just say the broad alliance of the EU, the European Central Bank & friends, the WEF-and-cronies in the global corporatocracy, the US Democratic Party, billionaires such as George Soros and Reid Hoffman, and sundry residual mass-formation world-savors of the crypto-communist-green-bullshit persuasion. The situation in our own country has grown particularly acute with the DC and other regional federal court judges lately arrogating the Article II executive powers of the president. You can see what the furthest strategic end-point is: the Democratic Party wants to induce President Trump to invoke a national emergency against this legal insurrection in order to force him to play the role of “fascist dictator.” Mr. Trump has been very careful to stay as much within-the-guardrails of the law as possible throughout this long campaign to destroy him and his MAGA movement to purge corruption from the government.

The hinge on the conflict now is the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), which is led by Chief Justice John Roberts. A whole lot of troubling info about CJ Roberts has blown up in recent days, much of it not exactly new, but buried and ignored by the likes of The New York Times, and its kindred blob mouthpieces. You’ve read in this blog recently how CJ Roberts’s chief factotum at SCOTUS, Sheldon Snook, is married to Mary McCord, involved officially in every lawfare prank against Mr. Trump since RussiaGate, when she was U.S. Assistant Attorney-General for National Security — and who then went on as counsel for Jerrold Nadler’s House Committee Trump Impeachment No. 1, and the J-6 House Committee, both actions of stupendous bad faith.

Turns out that CJ Roberts has been “besties” with Lawfare field marshal Norm Eisen, and for quite a long time, as far back as 2005. Eisen was special counsel on Impeachment No. 1, and chief strategist behind the janky cases staged last year against Mr. Trump by New York AG Letitia James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and Fulton County (GA) DA Fani Willis. You can bet that Eisen was at least an unofficial strategic advisor in the Special Counsel Jack Smith prosecutions, too, along with Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann of Mueller Commission infamy — Eisen, McCord, and Weissmann, the three Nosferatus of Lawfare. Eisen is coordinating most of the current lawsuit action against Mr. Trump in the federal courts.

Several alt-news outlets are reporting that CJ Roberts made two trips to visit Norm Eisen in Prague between 2011 and 2014 when Eisen was Barack Obama’s ambassador to the Czech Republic. The longest visit, a week, entailed a global conference on “American and European rule-of-law issues.” Hmmmm. . . what could that possibly mean? Revolver News, Mike Benz on “X”, and a character styled as “The Researcher” on “X” have all reported on the Roberts-Eisen close friendship. Also turns out that CJ Roberts is a club member at an elite, invite-only club for legal poohbahs called the Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court, which is indirectly associated with an international Inns of Court network centered in London. (“Rule-of-law,” anyone?) Other members of the EBW Inn of Court in DC. include Judges James (“Jeb”) Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Amit Mehta, all of the DC District — all involved in current lawfare suits — and SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Do you suppose they have discussed any of these matters at their meet-ups, especially after the pass-around of legal beverages? Perhaps even strategized about them?

Doesn’t that make you a little queasy about CJ Roberts’s role presiding over cases coming any day before SCOTUS that have been designed and propelled by his good pal, Norm Eisen? Should CJ Roberts consider recusing himself from any of these pending cases on the SCOTUS docket? Oh, yes, one other interesting sidelight: John Roberts has been found listed on the Jeffrey Epstein flight logs of the “Lolita Express” bound for Little St. James Island in the US Virgin Islands, Epstein’s supposed party shack for the celebrity elite. The allegation that the “John Roberts” listed in the flight log is the same as the Chief Justice is officially unsubstantiated. But here it is FWIW. Of course, no flight log would be required for a jaunt to Epstein’s New York City townhouse, in case CJ Roberts ever ventured up there from our nation’s capital, an easy car trip.

It is established fact that Epstein was busy recording the various doings in the many bedrooms of these establishments, arguably not merely for his private entertainment. Is CJ Roberts perhaps under blackmail for any such activity recorded? Lord only knows, just now. But it’s possible that FBI Director Kash Patel and his Deputy Director Dan Bongino know the answer to this abiding mystery, since weeks ago they assigned a thousand agents in the New York City FBI office to sort out the thousands of pages and other articles of evidence that the office had been suppressing for years until US AG Pam Bondi fired the top agent there, James Dennehy, for withholding it so long. It’s been awfully quiet over at the FBI and DOJ home office in DC since then. Of course, if any referrals are being considered, or any grand jury bound cases being prepared, you wouldn’t want that to leak out, would you?

Read more …

Roberts can try to wait out the clock 677 times, but the Trump team are not fools.

John Roberts Needs to Do His Job Already (Skeet)

We are in the midst of a judicial coup. In the past three months, there have been at least 79 nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts against the legal orders issued by President Trump. That’s more than half the total number of nationwide injunctions ever issued. Furthermore, these injunctions can ignore and overrule rulings on the same issue made by other district judges. If 50 district judges rule that a presidential order is constitutional, and the 51st district judge rules that it isn’t, that single district judge can overrule and violate the separation of powers not only of the president and Congress, but also of the rest of the judiciary. Just in the past couple of weeks, a federal judge blocked President Trump from firing federal probationary workers. Bosses and managers in every company in America, including unionized companies, have the right to fire probationary workers at any time for any reason.

But Judge James K. Bredar unilaterally declared that President Trump cannot. In the same vein, District Judge Anthony Trenga blocked President Trump from firing 19 CIA and DNI employees. District Judges Benjamin Settle and Ana Reyes, handling different cases on opposite sides of the country, both blocked Trump’s transgender military ban. Boston Municipal Court Judge Mark Summerville declared an ICE agent in contempt for taking an illegal into custody during the latter’s criminal trial (for charges of falsifying information on a government document, a charge the judge dismissed). Judge Summerville then ordered the local district attorney’s office to investigate the ICE agent. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the American government to somehow force the return of an MS-13 gang leader from a prison in El Salvador. The judge said he must be returned before this upcoming Monday before midnight. (Or?)

District Judge Edward Chen blocked President Trump from revoking deportation protections from Venezuelan illegals, decrying Trump’s order as racist and blathering on about the “social and economic contributions” of the 350,000 illegals flooding the labor market and straining social services, as if their economic impact (even if it were positive) should have any bearing whatsoever of the constitutionality of Trump’s order. As Bonchie over at RedState pointed out, this case is particularly egregious in that Judge Chen disregarded the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously ruled that the Temporary Protection Status (which Judge Chen ordered reinstated) is not subject to judicial review. This is the appeals court under whose jurisdiction Judge Chen operates. So, he basically just told his supervisors that they’re wrong, he’s right, and they can go pound sand.

And of course there is District Judge Boasberg, who infamously ordered planes carrying foreign terrorists to turn around midair and return them to American soil, where they’d be freed to rape, murder, and vote Democrat. Any common-sense reading of the Alien Enemies Act clearly demonstrates that President Trump is well within his rights in deporting foreign terrorists and gang members. But Boasberg singlehandedly and arbitrarily claimed authority to negate the law. Boasberg’s blatant disregard of the law and his usurpation of executive authority led to calls from conservative circles, Congress, and the president himself for Boasberg’s impeachment. But shortly after these calls for impeachment, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an unprecedented statement denouncing such an approach. Roberts’ statement read, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Justice Roberts is not so dumb as to confuse “disagreement concerning a judicial decision” with a blatant usurpation of authority and the willful violation of the separation of powers as enumerated in the U. S. Constitution. Roberts’ intention is to protect and expand the unchecked power of the judiciary at the expense of the other co-equal branches of government. The abuse of legislative and executive power regularly leads to censure, party expulsion, and impeachment. The abuse of judicial power suffers from no such checks, limitations, or consequences. And when such constitutionally documented remedies are pondered by members of the supposedly coequal branches, Justice Roberts harangues them for their audacity.

Justice Roberts is also not so dumb as to not realize exactly what the Left is doing. It’s obvious to everyone that they’re trying to jam Trump up in the red tape of a judicial bureaucratic nightmare to slow down or stop his agenda. It doesn’t matter if every single case reaches the Supreme Court and every single case results in the Supreme Court siding with Trump. Such a process can take months or years to adjudicate each case. That’s the point. The process is the punishment, and the Left is using it as an unconstitutional veto. They’re hoping to string Trump along until the midterms, where they hope to regain control of Congress and launch a few dozen or so impeachment proceedings against him (about which Roberts will make zero statements about the abuse of impeachment powers).

His defense of the integrity of the court system, or against the abuse of impeachment, is quite selective. Did he speak out during the first two sham impeachments against President Trump? Did he speak out when President Biden brazenly ignored and defied the Supreme Court ruling on student debt? On a side note, John, any progress on that internal investigation as to which justice’s aide leaked the Dobbs decision to the press? To the extent that Justice Robert concedes that there is a blatant judicial coup being attempted in real time at district level (for which there have been no consequences and, hence, no incentives to refrain from such abuse, which has clearly accelerated in recent weeks), the legal and constitutional solution must be wide ranging and comprehensive.

[..] Suppose a rogue judge ordered the New York Times and the Washington Post to cease operations based on that judge’s twisted understanding of the First Amendment. Would Justice Roberts tell everyone to calm down and go through the appeals process? Would these newspapers be expected to abide by the ruling for the months and years it would take to reach the Supreme Court?

If police across the country started entering whatever homes they wanted to conduct warrantless searches, and a rogue judge passed a nationwide injunction giving them legal cover to do so, would Justice Roberts expect this abuse to continue while the appeals courts heard the cases? Would American citizens be expected to submit to warrantless searches at the whim of the authorities until SCOTUS finally got around to reviewing them?

Justice Roberts, you have judges ordering how the executive is to administer the military. You have justices acting as de facto air traffic controllers, demanding the executive branch order aircraft maneuvers over other nations’ airspace without any regard or knowledge of the safety and logistics thereof. You have judges handcuffing executive action based not on the constitutionality of said action, but on how that particular judge thinks its economic impact would be. You have judges ordering district attorneys’ offices to launch investigations. You have judges ordering our government to tell other governments what to do.

Read more …

“Judge Boasberg’s politically motivated ruling overstepped his authority, compromised the impartiality of the judiciary, and created a constitutional crisis,”

Trump Nemesis Judge Muses: Who to Hold in Contempt in Deportation Case? (Adams)

“How should I determine who the contemner or contemners are?” federal District Court Judge James Boasberg asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Immigration Litigation Drew Ensign. A contemner is someone said to be in contempt of court. In an at-times contentious hearing on Thursday, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told the Justice Department lawyer that he thought the Trump administration had disobeyed his verbal court order to turn around three planes heading to El Salvador carrying more than 238 illegal migrants accused by the Trump administration of being members of the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs. “It seems to me there’s a fair likelihood that that is not correct; in fact, that the government acted in bad faith throughout that day,” Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said in court.

The Trump administration, for its part, maintained that it had followed the judge’s written order on 7:27 p.m. on March 15 that halted what the administration viewed as the enforcement of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. However, Boasberg also gave an oral order earlier in the day that is the subject of the dispute between the judge and the Trump administration. The Trump administration contends that the judge’s verbal command to turn the planes around “did not amount to a binding injunction.” The 1798 Alien Enemies Act was passed during the administration of John Adams, the second president. The law stipulated that when the United States is at war or facing “any invasion or predatory incursion,” the president can remove males who are 14 years of age or older from the United States “as alien enemies.”

Boasberg asked who had made the decision to not turn the planes back or not disembark the illegal immigrants, for which the government lawyer did not have an answer. “You, standing here, have no idea who made the decision to not to bring the planes back or have the passengers not be disembarked upon arrival? As we proceed with potential contempt proceedings, that may become relevant,” the judge said. Members of Congress have taken issue with Boasberg’s actions, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has vowed to hold hearings on some of the judicial rulings against the Trump administration. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, and five other House Republicans have introduced articles of impeachment in the House against Boasberg.

“Chief Judge Boasberg usurped the executive’s constitutional authority, going so far as to order midair flights to turn around and return violent foreign gangsters back to American soil. Judge Boasberg’s politically motivated ruling overstepped his authority, compromised the impartiality of the judiciary, and created a constitutional crisis,” Gill said in a press statement. To remove a federal judge from office would require some Democrats’ support in the Senate, which House Republicans are unlikely to get. Boasberg is expected to rule on whether to hold Trump administration officials in contempt of court next week. The federal D.C. appeals court denied the Trump administration’s request to lift Boasberg’s order, and the administration has subsequently appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Read more …

Not complete.

Supreme Court Shuts Down Activist Judge (ZH)

The Supreme Court on Friday overruled an activist judge in Boston, allowing the Trump administration to slash $250 million for more than 100 teacher training grants for DEI and other woke programs. In a 5-4 decision nine days after the request, the Supremes sided with the Trump administration’s emergency request to stay the court order by judge Myong J. Joun of the federal District of Massachusetts – who had ordered the Trump administration to “immediately restore” the “pre-existing status quo prior to the termination.” According to the ruling – which is likely to narrow the ability of district courts to halt agency actions involving grant function, Joun lacked authority to order the Trump admin to restore the funding.

https://twitterr.com/bykatiebuehler/status/1908255070291996992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1908255070291996992%7Ctwgr%5Ee5efef6d959ddcbb739d9a2382749cea9bba9ea0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fsupreme-court-shuts-down-activist-judge-lets-trump-cut-250-million-dei-training-teachers

In his ruling, Myong sided with California and eight other blue states that argued that the cuts were likely driven by efforts by the Trump administration to gut DEI programs (duh). The cuts were announced on Feb. 17, following findings by DOGE that taxpayer funds were being used to “train teachers and education agencies on divisive ideologies” that were “inappropriate and unnecessary,” including “critical race theory,; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); social justice activism; ‘anti-racism’; and instruction on white privilege and white supremacy.” And of course, dissenting in the Supreme Court decision were Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Chief Justice Roberts.

Read more …

“Carney said the move was bound to “rupture the global economy,” which has already become “fundamentally different today than it was yesterday.”

That is the idea, yes.

Canada Will Lead The World – PM (RT)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has condemned US President Donald Trump’s new slate of tariffs, declaring that Ottawa stands ready to become the global economic leader in place of Washington. He delivered the remarks on Thursday as he unveiled retaliatory measures for Trump’s claimed “reciprocal” tariffs, which include an additional 25% automobile industry tariff on Canada. Ottawa has responded by tariffing all cars and vehicle content imported from the US that is not compliant with USMCA, a cornerstone free trade pact between the US, Canada, and Mexico. The sweeping new wave of tariffs ranging from 10% to 49%, affecting most countries in the world, was rolled out by Trump on Wednesday on what he called “liberation day” in an effort to rectify America’s import-export imbalance. Carney said the move was bound to “rupture the global economy,” which has already become “fundamentally different today than it was yesterday.”

“The system of global trade anchored on the US [is one] that Canada has relied on since the end of the Second World War. A system that, while not perfect, has helped to deliver prosperity for our country for decades is over. Our old relationship of steadily deepening integration with the US is over,” the prime minister announced. Carney described the development as a “tragedy” that has become “the new reality,” but claimed that Ottawa was ready to take “global economic leadership” instead of Washington. “Canada must be looking elsewhere to expand our trade, to build our economy, and to protect our sovereignty. Canada is ready to take a leadership role in building a coalition of like-minded countries who share our values,” he said. “And if the United States no longer wants to lead, Canada will.”

Canada has become one of the prime targets for Trump’s attacks on the global trade status quo, with the US president alleging that Washington has been “subsidizing” Ottawa in the amount of about $200 billion a year. The best way to resolve their economic disagreements would be for Canada would be becoming the “cherished” 51st state of the US, he has suggested on multiple occasions. While Canadian leaders have firmly rejected the annexation idea, opinion polls have indicated it is also extremely unpopular among the public as well. A recent YouGov poll suggested that up to 77% of Canadians firmly oppose it, with only around 15% in favor of a merger with the US.

Read more …

We escaped this at the last minute.

Trump HHS Slashes Hundreds of Millions in Woke LGBTQ Grants (DS)

The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Department has canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants dedicated to researching illegal sexual behavior in children, pregnancy prevention for “transgender boys,” and so-called sleep inequality affecting black sexual-minority men. In March, HHS canceled at least $530 million of funding for LGBTQ+ health research programs, according to a grant tracker from Noam Ross of rOpenSci and Scott Delaney of Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. HHS previously provided more than $990 million of grant funding to LGBTQ+ health research programs, according to the tracker. The National Institutes of Health’s newly sworn-in director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, said that under his tutelage, the agency would shift its priorities toward “research aimed at preventing, treating, and curing chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and many others that cause so much suffering and deaths among all Americans, LGBTQ individuals included.”

The shift “away from politicized DEI and gender ideology studies” is in “accordance with the president’s executive orders,” HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon told The Daily Signal. The priority shift included cutting funding for studies focused on radical gender ideology, critical race theory, and other topics that polls show to be wildly unpopular with Americans, according to The Daily Signal’s review of terminated grants. For instance, the Trump administration cut off $10,000 of promised funding to a conference Feb. 25-27 at the University of Oklahoma called “Be Curious Not Judgmental: The 4th National Symposium on Sexual Behavior of Youth.” “Professionals and parents continue to use myths and misunderstandings as the base of decisions on problematic and illegal sexual behavior of children and adolescents,” the symposium’s website reads. “Adults worry about addressing sexual topics, and yet youth continue to be inundated with graphic sexual images and messages.”

“We need to better equip professionals and parents to understand and support healthy sexual development and to identify problematic sexual behavior early and intervene with all children and caregivers impacted,” the description continues. One breakout session at the conference focused on “The Help-Wanted Prevention Intervention for Minor Attracted Individuals,” a euphemism for pedophiles. On March 21, Trump’s NIH terminated a $2.9 million grant to the University of Minnesota for research on “adolescent health at the intersections of sexual, gender, racial/ethnic, immigrant identities and native language.” The study aimed to determine “what positive and negative experiences are particularly relevant to the overlapping, simultaneous production of inequalities by [sexual and gender minority] identity, race/ethnicity, immigration experiences, and native language?”

The pre-Trump NIH promised the Research Triangle Institute $100,507 to study “social influences on sexual health among Latinx adolescents and emerging adults who identify as LGBTQ+ in an agricultural community.” NIH ended a $1.5 million grant to Urban Health Partnerships for “leveraging a community-driven approach to address the impact of social determinants of health on structural inequities among Miami-Dade County’s intergenerational LGBTQ+ Community.” Hunter College lost its $211,100 grant to study “development and feasibility of a psychosocial intervention for sexual and gender minority autistic adults.” On March 18, NIH cut off Virginia Commonwealth University’s $205,308 grant focused on “using youth-engaged methods to develop and evaluate a measure for disordered eating behaviors in transgender and gender-diverse youth.”

“Transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse (TNG) youth face stigma due to the marginalization of their gender identities,” the study says. “TNG youth also have increased vulnerability to body dissatisfaction due to pubertal changes and development of secondary sexual characteristics that might be misaligned with their gender identity, which may be exacerbated by a youth’s inability to access gender-affirming medical care (i.e., puberty blockers, gender-affirming hormones).” Yale University lost government funding for a program, “Training in Behavioral Design Interventions to Address Stigma Among Men Who have Sex with Men.” “This study will explore relationships of different discrimination experiences and sexual health among young Black men who have sex with men (YBMSM),” the project narrative says. “This study aims to better the sexual health of YBMSM throughout their lives by informing future interventions that help decrease new cases of HIV and other poor sexual health outcomes.”

The NIH terminated its $2,368,492 contract with Brown University to study “improving mental health among the LGBTQ+ community impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.”NIH had committed more than $1.3 million to Princeton University to study “Views of Gender in Adolescence.” “Gender diverse children often experience disparities in mental health and well-being,” the project narrative says. “Further questions concern the stability of their gender, as that has implications for medical transitions. The proposed work would examine the role of gender beliefs and self-categorization in predicting mental health and well-being, as well as provide better estimates of rates of stability and change across time in the identities of both cisgender and gender-diverse youth.” Trump’s HHS terminated a $1.3 million grant to the Center for Innovative Public Health Research to study “Adapting an LGB+ inclusive teen-pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys.”

Read more …

Publius Helvius Pertinax.

“There is no doubt, however, that those who have fattened at the public trough in the U.S. for so many decades are not giving up easily..”

The DOGE Emperor (Spencer)

See if any of this sounds familiar: a great nation, indeed, the world’s only superpower, is beset by turmoil, as a corrupt political class grows more interested in enriching itself than in performing any actual public service. Finally, a new leader emerges who has a long and distinguished record in other fields, but is not a career politician. Citizens who are deeply concerned about the direction of the country put their faith in this unlikely reformer and manage to secure the top spot for him, but the corrupt elements are supremely powerful and deeply entrenched. They refuse to accept the new leader and fight back fiercely against his efforts to restore competence and honesty to the government. I am, of course, speaking about Publius Helvius Pertinax, who was the emperor of Rome from Jan. 1, 193, to March 28, 193. In his all too brief reign at the helm of the magnificent empire, Pertinax tried to turn around the mighty ship of state and draw it out of the morass of corruption into which he had fallen.

One of his contemporaries, the historian and Roman Senator Cassius Dio, said that Pertinax was “an excellent and upright man” and a fine emperor as well, who during his three-month tenure demonstrated “not only humaneness and integrity in the imperial administrations, but also the most economical management and the most careful consideration for the public welfare.” Writing over thirteen centuries later, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in his notorious manual of power politics, “The Prince,” that Pertinax was one of three Roman emperors of his time who were “men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane, and benignant.” This did not, however, play well in the empire of his day. The soldiers of the Roman Empire, “being accustomed to live licentiously under Commodus,” who was Pertinax’s free-spending predecessor, “could not endure the honest life to which Pertinax wished to reduce them.”

This was understandable. The thing about corruption is that it, well, corrupts. Once soldiers get accustomed to getting lavish amounts of money under the table for various favors, it is difficult to compel them to be content with their relatively meager official salary alone. And it wasn’t just the soldiers. The Roman Emperors site notes that “Pertinax’s reign was characterized by his attempts to reverse the excesses and corruption of Commodus’ rule. He immediately set about reforming the administration, cutting down on the extravagance that had characterized the previous regime.” Shades of DOGE. Pertinax also “sought to restore discipline within the Praetorian Guard and the broader military, which had become increasingly unruly under Commodus. Pertinax also attempted to implement financial reforms, aiming to replenish the depleted imperial treasury through austerity measures and the sale of Commodus’ extravagant possessions.”

While anyone who was aware of the empire’s former glory welcomed these reforms, the beneficiaries of the corruption were less happy: “Pertinax’s reforms were met with resistance from multiple quarters. The Praetorian Guard, in particular, had grown accustomed to the bribes and favors they had received during Commodus’ reign. Pertinax’s attempts to impose discipline and reduce their influence were deeply unpopular. The Guard, which had played a key role in the assassination of Commodus, was now wary of any emperor who might threaten their privileged position.” Making matters even worse was the fact that “Pertinax’s efforts to restore financial discipline alienated many in the Roman elite. His attempts to collect overdue taxes and recover state property from wealthy individuals who had benefitted under Commodus made him enemies among the Senate and the aristocracy. These powerful groups saw Pertinax as a threat to their wealth and influence and began plotting against him.”

Yeah, you’re right, this could be a terrific movie. Cast Trump as Pertinax, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi as his enemies among the Senate and aristocracy, Old Joe Biden (or maybe Barack Obama) as Commodus, and Mark Milley as the angry head of the Praetorian Guard. The worst part, however, is that Pertinax did not succeed; the Praetorian Guard assassinated him on March 28, 193, and the empire descended into chaos. The imperial throne was sold off to the highest bidder, Didius Julianus, who was himself murdered on June 2, 193. Of course, the effort to reform the American government may not have the same sad ending. There is no doubt, however, that those who have fattened at the public trough in the U.S. for so many decades are not giving up easily, and will continue trying to throw every possible roadblock in Trump’s path as he attempts to restore honest government. May he succeed where Pertinax failed.

Read more …

He’ll make the call.

Trump’s Inner Circle Opposes New Putin Call – NBC News (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s advisers are urging him to not call his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, before Moscow commits to a full ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict, NBC News reported on Thursday citing two anonymous officials. The US leader previously told the media outlet that he intends to talk with Putin again, potentially as soon as this week, following their previous conversation on March 18. Trump, who is trying to mediate a truce between Moscow and Kiev after more than three years of hostilities, stated on Tuesday that Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky are “ready to make a deal” thanks to his efforts.

Putin has said he supports a full suspension of the fighting, but is concerned with the specifics of how it would be arranged. He has suggested that a pause would become possible if the US ensures comprehensive monitoring along the frontline and if Kiev suspends mobilization of reinforcements. During his previous call with Trump, the Russian president agreed to a moratorium on attacks against energy infrastructure, which Zelensky also publicly endorsed. However since then the Russian Defense Ministry has regularly reported Ukrainian strikes breaching the partial ceasefire, including against internationally-owned infrastructure on Russian soil. Moscow has said that it remains committed to its end of the bargain. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on Friday that no contacts between Putin and Trump are scheduled for the “next several days” and downplayed the NBC report, warning about “speculation and outright lies” in the press.

This week, Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev, who advises President Putin on international economic cooperation, visited the US to meet White House officials. Following the talks, he said more progress has been made towards resolving the Ukraine conflict, but that third parties are seeking to derail the normalization of US-Russian relations initiated by Trump in February, when he phoned Putin for the first time since assuming office.Politico has reported an expectation in the UK and Germany of a third Putin-Trump call within days, following Dmitriev’s visit.

Read more …

Putin will demand a final solution.

Zelensky Contradicts Trump On NATO Membership (RT)

Ukraine could still become a member of NATO despite opposition to the idea from the administration of US President Donald Trump, Vladimir Zelensky has insisted. Trump lashed out at the Ukrainian leader earlier this week, saying “he wants to be a member of NATO. Well, he was never going to be a member of NATO. He understands that.” However, during a meeting with the heads of territorial communities of Chernigov Region, Zelensky made it clear that he has not yet given up on his long-standing ambitions of joining the US-led bloc. “You know who does not support Ukraine’s membership in NATO so far, but in any case, no one is removing this issue from the table for the future,” Zelensky said, as cited by the Ukrinform news agency.

“At least, we are talking about the fact that even if now someone does not want to support [Kiev joining the bloc], we will see what happens in the future,” Zelensky added. According to the Ukrainian leader, until Kiev becomes a member of the bloc it should be provided with “NATO-like security guarantees” by its Western backers. Ukraine will be able to achieve “a just peace” with Russia, but in order to do so “it has to be strong when getting to the negotiating table,” he insisted. Russia cited Kiev’s ambitions to join NATO, which Moscow views as a hostile bloc, as among the main reasons for launching its military operation in February 2022.

Ukraine’s neutrality remains one of the key demands by Moscow for achieving a diplomatic settlement of the conflict, along with the demilitarization and denazification of the country and recognition by Kiev of the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye regions as Russian territory. Last month, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said “yes” when asked by Bloomberg if Trump had already taken the question of Kiev joining NATO off the table in efforts undertaken by the US and Russia to achieve peace in the Ukraine conflict. Rutte also suggested that once the fighting stops, the West could “step by step… restore normal relations with Russia.” However, he added that “we are absolutely not there yet, we have to maintain the pressure” on Moscow.

Read more …

“It is the same ‘playbook’ that was used against me by a group of Lunatics and Losers, like Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, and Lisa Monaco,”

‘Free Le Pen’ – Trump to France (RT)

US President Donald Trump has accused the French political establishment of employing lawfare against right-wing figure Marine Le Pen, urging Paris to “free” her. On Monday, a Paris court sentenced Le Pen to four years in prison and imposed a five-year ban on her eligibility for public office, effectively preventing her from running in the 2027 presidential election. In a post on Truth Social late Thursday, Trump declared Le Pen a victim of a “witch hunt.” He asserted that the prosecution of Le Pen was orchestrated by “European Leftists using Lawfare to silence Free Speech, and censor their Political Opponent.”

“It is the same ‘playbook’ that was used against me by a group of Lunatics and Losers, like Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, and Lisa Monaco,” he remarked, referring to attorneys who were involved in litigation against him since his first term as president. Trump claims those proceedings were politically-driven. Although Trump admitted he did not personally know Le Pen or the specifics of her case, which he assumed stemmed from a “bookkeeping” error, he expressed admiration for her resilience. He concluded, “It is all so bad for France, and the Great French People, no matter what side they are on. FREE MARINE LE PEN!” Le Pen and several other senior members of her National Rally (RN) party were found guilty of misappropriating EU funds intended to support European Parliament members for domestic party activities.

The offenses occurred between 2004 and 2016, when she was the leader of RN. Several foreign political leaders criticized the ruling as a blow to democracy in France. Trump previously described it as “a very big deal.” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni contended that the sentence “takes away representation from millions of citizens,” while her Hungarian counterpart, Viktor Orban, expressed his solidarity with Le Pen by posting “Je suis Marine!” Le Pen characterized the ruling as “political,” asserting that it reflected a “lower court judge” depriving French voters of the opportunity to back their preferred presidential candidate.

Read more …

Can’t get elected three times, but you can serve.

Yes, Trump Could Serve a Third Term. Law Professor Explains How (Allen)

President Donald Trump could not run for a third term, but he could be president a third time, according to Cornell law professor Bill Jacobson. The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear that no one can be elected to the office of the president “more than twice.” “But there’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits someone from serving a third term,” said Jacobson, founder and publisher of Legal Insurrection. If another candidate won the presidential election, and Trump was his or her vice presidential running mate, that candidate could step aside after winning the race and allow Trump to take over, according to Jacobson, who was quick to add he doesn’t endorse such an action. While a deal made with a running mate for Trump to serve a third term “does not violate the Constitution,” Jacobson says, it “might violate the spirit of the Constitution.”

The intent of the 22nd Amendment is “that we not have a permanent president,” Jacobson said, adding that because of that, serving a third term “might be subject to challenge,” adding: “It might be subject to what was the original meaning of these terms. But on its face, there’s no barrier. “The conversation of Trump serving a third term recently landed in headlines when a number of reporters started asking the president if he wanted a third term. “I’m not looking at that, but I’ll tell you, I have had more people asking me to have a third term,” Trump said while speaking with reporters on Air Force One at the end of March. This isn’t the first time the idea of a former two-term president serving another term has been floated.

In October 2023, Howard J. Klein of Lakewood Ranch, Florida, wrote in a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal that former President Barack Obama could run as the vice presidential candidate with then-President Joe Biden. “Mr. Obama would constitutionally succeed to the presidency—without election—if Mr. Biden were to vacate the office,” Klein wrote. The 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1951 in the wake of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election to four terms in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. Congress approved the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947, then submitted it to the state legislatures for required ratification. The ratification process was completed on Feb. 27, 1951, when the required 36 of the then-48 states (before Hawaii and Alaska joined the union) had ratified the amendment.

Read more …

Buy TikTok, Larry.

Larry Fink Believes He Will Win Over Control Of The Panama Canal (Gasparino)

Larry Fink is playing the long game. With a little time, a possible nudge from President Trump and some on-the-ground lobbying of his contacts in mainland China, BlackRock’s billionaire boss believes he will win approval from the Mainland’s apparatchiks to take control of the Panama Canal, On The Money has learned.Specifically, Fink is looking to close a $23 billion deal with Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison to buy 43 ports worldwide — including the two ports that are strategically located on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal.Until recently, most people didn’t know much about CK Hutchison, which is headed by the mercurial, 96-year-old billionaire Li Ka-shing, Hong Kong’s richest tycoon.

That was until The Donald began talking up the strategic importance of the Panama Canal, one of the busiest waterways for global trade because it easily connects both oceans through a 51-mile deepwater runway. Hutchison holds long-term leases there and at dozens of others including on the Suez Canal. Its stock traded cheaply, and when Trump began to mouth off about the need to exert US eminence at the Panama Canal (the US, after all, built it and controlled the zone until the 1970s), Blackrock saw a way to make some money and get into Trump’s good graces. The other side of the deal wasn’t so happy. And I’m not talking about Hutchison, but its overlords in the Chinese Communist Party who began to “investigate” the tie-up for God knows what other than to prevent the US from gaining a foothold at this vital waterway. The CCP is now threatening to throttle the entire deal.

The people at BlackRock are at least posturing in private conversations that they’re not too worried. They tell On The Money to ignore reports that the deal was set to be officially signed by Wednesday. The real due date is the 145-day “due diligence” period that began when the buyout was announced on March 4. The grace period was designed to ensure a complicated buyout involving dozens of ports in many different countries comported with various laws, including getting buy-in from the Chinese President Xi Jinping. Yes, the people at BlackRock said they saw the potential for trouble from China Inc., and they built that into the closing schedule. They believe that over this time, they can get the deal approved by the CCP overlords and put American flags back up in the canal zone.

“We are proceeding as if this deal will happen,” a BlackRock executive told On the Money as this column went to press. Of course, things could change given the volatile nature of the relations between China and the US and the frenemy dynamic between Trump and Xi. Trump is said to admire the Chinese strongman (and the feeling seems to be mutual), but wary of his obvious global ambitions. Part of Trump, I am told, will never forgive the Chinese for unleashing COVID on the planet, which on top of all the misery it caused, doomed his re-election chances in 2020. But the BlackRock deal is something Trump covets. He mentioned it in the State of the Union address, no less as proof of an American global renaissance.

And people at BlackRock believe the deal will get folded into negotiations with the Chinese over Trump’s plan to save the China-owned short-video app TikTok from being banned from US app stores as early as this weekend, and our overall trade negotiations with the Mainland. Barring some last-minute deal implosion (or a realistic new competing bid, which at this stage is unlikely), the White House is scrambling to unveil a plan for a newish US-investor-controlled TikTok any minute now, a structure, as On The Money reported, that the Trumpers believe will comport with a US law that demands the end of Chinese control.

But the Chinese will have some buy-in, as I also reported. That includes possibly a minority stake in the new company and it won’t have to part with its algorithm, the important part of TikTok that gins up user engagement and some say, has allowed the Chinese to spy on US users. To get around the ban legislation, tech giant Oracle will be part of the planned new ownership group, but more importantly, monitor the algo in its cloud. To get Xi’s buy-in, the Chinese remain a part of the app’s infrastructure, which can operate in the US and retain its value estimated in the tens of billions of dollars.

Read more …

Panama and TikTok.

Trump Extends TikTok Deadline 75 Days, As He Tries To Close Deal (JTN)

President Donald Trump announced Friday that he would sign an executive order to keep the social media app TikTok running for 75 days. Trump insisted his administration had made great progress on a deal to keep the social media app running in the U.S., but that it needed more time to finalize it. “The Deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days,” Trump wrote on TRUTH Social. “We hope to continue working in Good Faith with China, who I understand are not very happy about our Reciprocal Tariffs (Necessary for Fair and Balanced Trade between China and the U.S.A.!).”

April 6 was the deadline for the China-based ByteDance to either sell the app or face a ban on U.S. operations. The founder of OnlyFans and Amazon made offers to buy the app earlier this week. “We do not want TikTok to ‘go dark.’ We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump’s post concluded.

Read more …

They risk the wrath of Trump. He’ll protect Elon.

EU Could Fine Elon Musk’s X $1B Over Illicit Content, Disinformation (CT)

European Union regulators are reportedly mulling a $1 billion fine against Elon Musk’s X, taking into account revenue from his other ventures, including Tesla and SpaceX, according to The New York Times. EU regulators allege that X has violated the Digital Services Act and will use a section of the act to calculate a fine based on revenue that includes other companies Musk controls, according to an April 3 report by the newspaper, which cited four people with knowledge of the plan. Under the Digital Services Act, which came into law in October 2022 to police social media companies and “prevent illegal and harmful activities online,” companies can be fined up to 6% of global revenue for violations.

A spokesman for the European Commission, the bloc’s executive branch, declined to comment on this case to The New York Times but did say it would “continue to enforce our laws fairly and without discrimination toward all companies operating in the EU.” In a statement, X’s Global Government Affairs team said that if the reports about the EU’s plans are accurate, it “represents an unprecedented act of political censorship and an attack on free speech.” “X has gone above and beyond to comply with the EU’s Digital Services Act, and we will use every option at our disposal to defend our business, keep our users safe, and protect freedom of speech in Europe,” X’s global government affairs team said.

Along with the fine, the EU regulators could reportedly demand product changes at X, with the full scope of any penalties to be announced in the coming months. Still, a settlement could be reached if the social media platform agrees to changes that satisfy regulators, according to the Times. One of the officials who spoke to the Times also said that X is facing a second investigation alleging the platform’s approach to policing user-generated content has made it a hub of illegal hate speech and disinformation, which could result in more penalties.

The EU investigation began in 2023. A preliminary ruling in July 2024 found X had violated the Digital Services Act by refusing to provide data to outside researchers, provide adequate transparency about advertisers, or verify the authenticity of users who have a verified account. X responded to the ruling with hundreds of points of dispute, and Musk said at the time he was offered a deal, alleging that EU regulators told him if he secretly suppressed certain content, X would escape fines.

Thierry Breton, the former EU commissioner for internal market, said in a July 12 X post in 2024 that there was no secret deal and that X’s team had asked for the “Commission to explain the process for settlement and to clarify our concerns,” and its response was in line with “established regulatory procedures.” Musk replied he was looking “forward to a very public battle in court so that the people of Europe can know the truth.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

mRNA
https://twitter.com/NicHulscher/status/1908173339677397118

 

 

BlackRock

 

 

Adams
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1907868704622198948

 

 

Payne

 

 

Effects

 

 

Golden Fish
https://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1907951899489227188

 

 

The King

 

 

Arthur C. Clarke

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 292025
 


Arnold Böcklin Mermaids at play 1886

 

Macron and Starmer’s Coalition of The Killing (SCF)
The EU Is Desperate To Sell Its People More Ukraine War (Marsden)
EU ‘Preparing For War’ – Hungary FM (RT)
Trump ‘Contemptuous’ of Zelensky – The Times (RT)
EU Waves White Flag, Prepares “Term Sheet Of Concessions” For Trade War (ZH)
Vance Delivers Trump’s ‘Message’ To US Troops In Greenland (RT)
Meloni Backs Vance’s Attack On EU (RT)
Bedlam, Pending (James Howard Kunstler)
Trump Asks SCOTUS To Allow Deportations To Proceed During Legal Challenge (ZH)
Judge Extends Injunction Against Trump’s Alien Enemies Act Invocation (ET)
USAID Officially Shuttered After Court Victory (ZH)
Donald Trump Taps Journalist Sara Carter As Next ‘Drug Czar’ (JTN)
FBI Whistleblowers Want Bureau To Review Their Cases (JTN)
California High Speed Rail Asks for $7 Billion More (Moran)
Global Firms Lining Up To Return To Russia – Putin Aide (RT)
Senator Cruz Files Companion Bill To Prohibit The Fed From Issuing a CBDC (CT)
EU Official Denies Anti-Free Speech Policies in Bizarre Letter to US Congress (Turley)
Stefanik Nomination Pulled to Protect Passage of Reconciliation (DS)

 

 

 

 

Excellent on everything about USA-CAN tariffs

 

 

Barron

Putin
https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1905385183143997928

HHS

Nap Mears
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1905646698153869398

Jordan Belfort – Not a word

 

 

 

 

“European citizens – 500 million of them – are being subjected to non-stop messaging about the “need” to militarize their societies to “defend” against “Russian expansionism”.

Macron and Starmer’s Coalition of The Killing (SCF)

If there were a prize for Orwellian-named conferences, then the one held this week in Paris would surely be a top contender. Over the past month, there has been a slew of such gatherings in London, Brussels, and Paris. They have been conducted in a frenzy to thwart peace and prolong war – under the guise of “seeking security” against Russia. Some 30 nations attended the latest Paris summit, convened by France’s Emmanuel Macron, and entitled “Building a Robust Peace for Ukraine and Europe”. Europe is being gaslighted to view war as peace and accept that all economic resources must be dedicated to militarism. It is an insane war footing that is beyond any democratic or moral rationale. European Union member states participated as well as NATO and non-EU nations Britain, Norway, and Canada.

We should clarify that it was the elitist leaders of these countries who were present. Their lack of democratic mandate and authority is all too obvious to the people of Europe. Some EU nations, such as Hungary and Slovakia, have protested commendably about the unwavering belligerence and obscene waste of public resources for fueling a proxy war in Ukraine. Notably, too, the United States was not represented at the Paris summit. Coincidentally, this week, a leaked private group conversation between senior members of the Trump administration revealed their contempt for “loathsome” European leaders. One can understand why. In the grandeur of Élysée Palace, Macron hailed the non-entity gathering as the “Coalition of the Willing”. With this self-appointed virtue, the French leader was referring to countries that are willing to deploy military forces to Ukraine or maintain the supply of weapons.

Macron has been assiduously supported in this military venture by Britain’s Prime Minister Kier Starmer. The French and British leaders have intensified their efforts to directly insinuate Europe and NATO militarily in the three-year conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Their efforts are a result of American President Donald Trump engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO alliance and Russia. Trump’s diplomatic overtures with Moscow have sidelined the European states and have left them with an acute political problem of how to justify continuing military support for a failing Ukraine Project. The French, British and other European Russophobes do not want the war to end. That’s because they are wedded to the false narrative about defending Ukraine from “Russian aggression”. They are also committed to strategically defeating Russia using Ukraine as a proxy.

In Orwellian fashion, the European and NATO warmongers cannot openly state their nefarious objective. That would be politically fatal. Hence, they are cynically dressing up their motives with virtuous-sounding schemes, such as deploying “peacekeeping troops” in the event of any ceasefire deal that the Americans and Russians might negotiate. The relentless demonizing of Russia as a threat to Europe is amplified by a near-constant drumbeat of war. European citizens – 500 million of them – are being subjected to non-stop messaging about the “need” to militarize their societies to “defend” against “Russian expansionism”.

Read more …

“..the official name for this giant spending spree: SAFE – as in, “Security Action For Europe.”

The EU Is Desperate To Sell Its People More Ukraine War (Marsden)

I guess calling Ursula von der Leyen’s €800 billion defence spending plan, “ReArm Europe,” as she did initially, didn’t test well – probably because Europeans are too busy wondering why there’s no money for literally anything else that isn’t a weapons buying bonanza. So, what’s with this new name, Readiness 2030, that they’ve suddenly started using as a replacement term? And why 2030? Turns out that’s the magic number that European intelligence agencies, notably Germany’s, have cooked up for when Russia will supposedly be all set to roll into Europe. You know, the same intelligence outfits that just now decided that the EU is a sitting duck and could really use desperate measures now that its economy is circling the drain.

Like, for example, the new proposal for French citizens to invest their personal savings of a minimum €500 euros, for at least 5 years, to help mitigate the dwindling public support for military over social spending, as the French economy minister just announced. That 2030 date definitely has nothing to do with the fact that politicians need a solid five years of blank checks from taxpayers to funnel cash into the defense industry, conveniently boosting GDP after tanking their own economies with their self-inflicted crises. To really hammer home the “readiness” vibe while European leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron riff nonstop about war with Russia, the EU is now mass-marketing a self-assembled emergency kit to all member state citizens.

“Today, the EU launches its new #Preparedness Strategy. ‘Ready for anything’ — this must be our new European way of life. Our motto and #hashtag,” wrote EU Crisis Management commissioner Hadja Lahbib on social media. She also posted a video that she called a “what’s in my bag — survival edition” and started pulling out of her purse things like a Swiss Army Knife, something that looked like a can of tuna, playing cards “for distraction”, and a radio. “Everything you need to survive the first 72 hours of a crisis,” she said. After that? Well, maybe the Russian soldiers who have invaded Europe will have just gotten their fill of selfies with the locals (courtesy of the go bag’s backup phone charger) – #TanksForTheMemories – and their travel chess set matches – and will be on their way. Because it’s not like the EU is going to get anything under control in 72 hours. As if that was the point anyway.

Oh, and Queen Ursula’s EU Commission isn’t stopping at just one dumb rebrand. The bloc is also giving a fresh coat of paint to what was once known as “fiscal responsibility.” EU rules used to cap member states’ deficits at 3% of GDP – now, that little restriction is being rebranded as a “National Escape Clause”. As in, congratulations! You’re finally free from the oppressive burden of not bankrupting your country. Not long ago, a stunt like yanking off national debt brakes would have just gotten member states a spanking from her. Now? It’s “spend whatever you want – as long as it’s on weapons.”

And let’s talk about the official name for this giant spending spree: SAFE – as in, “Security Action For Europe.” Because nothing screams “SAFE” like blowing your savings together, like a group of teenagers maxing out their credit cards at the mall. Except instead of Sephora lip gloss or Louis Vuitton bags, it’s missiles and drones. And speaking of drones – all this rebranding of the defense spending spree was sparked by objections from some folks like Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, who was like, hey, we should at least pretend this is about dual use – you know, the drones we’re cranking out for Putin’s completely hypothetical invasion could also fight wildfires.

Italy’s Prime Minister Georgia Meloni also brought up the fact that if this is all supposed to be about security, then why is the focus on just making weapons and not also on improving essential service that are also kind of important if this is really about an emergency. Well, because that won’t make defense shares go up, will it, silly?

Read more …

“..as long as the war continues, pro-war European politicians can avoid taking responsibility for three years of failure, and avoid answering an extremely uncomfortable question: where is the money that was sent to Ukraine?

EU ‘Preparing For War’ – Hungary FM (RT)

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has accused Brussels bureaucrats of clinging to a “failed pro-war policy” in a desperate attempt to delay the moment when European taxpayers begin asking where the money spent on bankrolling Kiev has gone. The European Union recently advised its 450 million inhabitants to stockpile essential supplies for at least 72 hours, with EU Commissioner for Crisis Management Hadja Lahbib warning on Wednesday that the Ukraine conflict threatens the bloc’s overall security. Szijjarto said he initially thought the warning was some kind of joke or “trolling,” after Lahbib posted a bizarre video showing Europeans what to pack in a 72-hour survival kit. “But why, in the 21st century, should EU citizens prepare a survival kit? There’s only one explanation: Brussels is preparing for war,“ Szijjarto wrote in a post on X on Friday.

“At a time when there’s finally a real chance for a ceasefire and meaningful peace talks with [President Donald Trump’s] return to office, Brussels is going in the opposite direction, clinging to a failed pro-war policy.” Why? Because as long as the war continues, pro-war European politicians can avoid taking responsibility for three years of failure, and avoid answering an extremely uncomfortable question: where is the money that was sent to Ukraine? EU institutions in Brussels and individual member states have spent over €132 billion over the past three years supporting Kiev, and have pledged an additional €115 billion that has yet to be allocated, according to data from Germany’s Kiel Institute.

Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has pushed for a diplomatic resolution and sought to recoup what he estimates to be over $300 billion in US taxpayer money that his predecessor “gifted” to Kiev. Washington recently brokered a limited ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, placing a moratorium on attacks on energy infrastructure. Kiev, however, has repeatedly breached the ceasefire terms, according to Moscow. Despite the ongoing peace process, the EU has continued to push a hawkish agenda. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently unveiled an €800 billion plan to ramp up military spending through loans.

IMeanwhile, France and the UK continue to advocate for the deployment of a military contingent to Ukraine. Speaking after a summit in Paris on Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that a so-called “coalition of the willing” will seek to deploy a “reassurance force” to Ukraine after a peace deal with Russia is reached. The proposal to send troops has already been rejected by several EU members. The “coalition of the willing” – a phrase originally coined by the US in 2003 to describe countries backing the invasion of Iraq – now mostly refers to states that have pledged to continue supporting Kiev militarily, without necessarily committing to troop deployments.

Read more …

“US negotiators have apparently been working to extract even greater concessions from Kiev.”

Trump ‘Contemptuous’ of Zelensky – The Times (RT)

US President Donald Trump is both contemptuous of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and assured of Kiev’s weakness in its conflict with Moscow, The Times’ Washington reporter Hugh Tomlinson suggested in an op-ed published on Friday. In light of this, Trump aims to get back all the funds the US has spent on the Ukraine conflict during his predecessor Joe Biden’s term, Tomlinson wrote. “Convinced of Ukraine’s weakness, contemptuous of Zelensky, and enraged by the billions of dollars in aid given to Kiev by Joe Biden’s administration, Trump has set out to get it all back, and more,” he said. Last month, Trump demanded that Kiev reimburse what he claimed was hundreds of billions of dollars in US aid via Ukraine’s mineral wealth, originally focusing on “rare earths.”

An earlier iteration of the deal was reportedly set to be signed in early March, only to be derailed by Zelensky’s public shouting match with the US president and vice president in the Oval Office. Following the altercation, Trump temporarily froze all military aid and intelligence sharing with Kiev. However, Washington reversed the decision after Kiev agreed to a 30-day partial ceasefire following US-Ukrainian talks in Jeddah earlier this month. Moscow has since accused Ukraine of multiple strikes on its energy sites, which are off-limits under the truce. After Monday’s separate talks with the US in Saudi Arabia, both Russia and Ukraine have said they’re willing to broaden the partial ceasefire to encompass a naval truce on the Black Sea. “For days, White House officials have insisted that an agreement on the minerals deal was close. Now a possible reason for the delay and the price of a ceasefire may be becoming clearer,” Tomlinson wrote, adding that “US negotiators have apparently been working to extract even greater concessions from Kiev.”

The latest version of the minerals deal proposed by the Trump administration is far harsher than earlier iterations, Reuters wrote on Thursday, citing a draft of the agreement. Under the newest terms, the US will recoup all aid money given to Ukraine since the escalation of its conflict with Russia in 2022 and charge a 4% annual interest rate on the sum before Kiev can access the fund’s profits. Zelensky has confirmed that he has received a fresh proposal from the US but insisted that the funding Kiev has received from Washington was a donation and not a loan. The US has allocated more than $123 billion to Ukraine in military and financial aid since 2022, according to data from Germany’s Kiel Institute. Trump maintains that Washington has spent more than $300 billion on supporting Kiev.

Read more …

Just write down all tariffs there are. Multi-dimensional puzzle, but do-able. Maybe DOGE can help.

EU Waves White Flag, Prepares “Term Sheet Of Concessions” For Trade War (ZH)

In what may be the first clear confirmation Trump’s plan to realign the global trader system is working, moments ago Bloomberg reported that the European Union is identifying concessions it’s willing to make to Donald Trump’s administration to secure the partial removal of the US tariffs that have already started hitting the bloc’s exports and that are set to increase after April 2. According to Bloomberg, EU officials were told at meetings this week in Washington that there was no way to avoid new auto and so-called reciprocal tariffs that Trump is launching next week. Discussions also began on what the contours of a potential deal to reduce them should eventually look like.

That prompted the European Commission (which handles trade matters for the EU) to start working on a “term sheet” for a potential concession agreement, which would set out areas for negotiations on the punitive trade measures, including lowering its own duties, mutual investments with the US as well as easing certain regulations and standards. In short, Europe – led these days by France’s Macron – did what Europe always does when led by the French: it surrendered.

The reciprocal tariffs which will be unveiled on April 2 are meant to strike out against what Trump considers to be unfair levies on US goods as well as non-tariff barriers, such as domestic regulations and how countries collect taxes, including the bloc’s value-added tax, digital taxes and regulations. The EU says its VAT is a fair, non-discriminatory tax that applies equally to domestic and imported goods (for more on the framework for Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, see this). The news, which is actually rather bad for Europe as it confirms the continent will be unable to retaliate fully and instead will be on the receiving end of Trump’s trade war, sparked a brief rally in the Euro…

Read more …

Watched bits on CNN. From the coverage, you’d swear Vance had arrived in Greenland with a squadron of hostile fighter jets.

But it’s simple. The entire Arctic will be contested. Greenland can’t defend itself. Denmark can’t defend it either, other than with NATO aka US assistance. Greenland doesn’t need the Denmark middleman.

Don’t be surprised if Trump DOES offer them $1 million per person.

Vance Delivers Trump’s ‘Message’ To US Troops In Greenland (RT)

US Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a forceful address to American service members at Pituffik Space Base in northwest Greenland on Friday, emphasizing the Trump administration’s determination to expand its permanent foothold on the Arctic island. The vice president’s visit came a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin outlined Moscow’s Arctic policy and warned that US annexation plans – dating back to the 1860s – should be taken seriously and not dismissed as “extravagant talk.” “I want to bring a message from President Trump,” Vance told the assembled airmen and guardians. “He’s grateful for your service, grateful for what you do up here… because the mission that you guys do is so important for the United States.”

While insisting that there are no “immediate plans” to expand the US military presence with new bases, Vance announced that Washington would “absolutely” increase investment – including “investing in additional military icebreakers, investing in additional naval ships that will have a greater presence in Greenland.” The vice president stressed that the US supports Greenlandic “self-determination,” but made it clear that Washington envisions a future in which the island ultimately aligns with America. “I think that you’d be a lot better coming under the United States security umbrella than you have been under Denmark’s,” he said. Vance accused the Danish government of failing the people of Greenland, claiming the island is “extremely vulnerable right now.”

Vance justified the administration’s increasingly assertive approach by pointing to rising Chinese and Russian activity in the region, describing Greenland as a geopolitical flashpoint in a new era of strategic competition. “We know that Russia and China and other nations are taking an extraordinary interest in Arctic passageways, in Arctic naval routes, and indeed in the minerals of the Arctic territories. We need to ensure that America is leading in the Arctic – because we know that if America doesn’t, other nations will fill the gap where we fall behind,” he said. He also highlighted Greenland’s critical role in US missile early warning systems, describing the base’s function as a vital shield “if a missile was fired from an enemy country.”

In his Thursday speech, President Vladimir Putin countered the US narrative, stressing that “Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic,” and emphasizing the region’s “enormous potential” for joint economic development, resource extraction, infrastructure projects and transport. “But at the same time, of course, we are concerned about the fact that NATO countries are increasingly often designating the Far North as a springboard for possible conflicts,” Putin added, noting that Moscow is “closely monitoring developments in the region” and “modernizing military infrastructure facilities.”

Read more …

Meloni also suggests sneaking Ukraine into NATO sans Article 5, but at least she’s not a warmonger. She’s just isolated.

Meloni Backs Vance’s Attack On EU (RT)

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has thrown her weight behind US Vice President J.D. Vance and his scathing criticism of Washington’s European allies last month. In a keynote address at the annual Munich Security Conference, Vance charged that the UK and several EU nations are failing to uphold free speech and democratic principles. “I have to say I agree,” Meloni told Financial Times. “I’ve been saying this for years… Europe has a bit lost itself.” She added that the believed the vice president’s ire was directed at a “ruling class,” that imposes its ideology on ordinary citizens.

The article in the British newspaper on Friday underscored Meloni’s ideological parallels with Trump and her lack of alignment with other European leaders on crucial matters. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have marked out a position apart from US President Donald Trump, in particular on the Ukraine conflict, where the White House is pushing hard for a truce. The duo is spearheading efforts to bolster the Ukrainian military, and has proposed that a “reassurance force” be stationed in the country. Russia has warned against any NATO military presence in Ukraine, regardless of the form it takes.

Meloni said that in contrast to Macron and Starmer, she is not keen to position herself as a “protagonist” on the global stage. While she did not directly contest claims that Russia poses a threat warranting Europe-wide military expansion, she emphasized that Rome recognizes “threats can come from 360 degrees.” She was referring to illegal migration across the Mediterranean, which is a pressing issue in Italy. ”If you simply think that you can defend yourself, taking care of the eastern flank, and you don’t consider for example what happens in the southern flank, you will have a problem,” the prime minister explained. Russian officials deny any aggressive intentions toward NATO, viewing the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war instigated by the bloc. Moscow has accused European leaders of undermining Trump’s mediation efforts and preferring the continuation of hostilities.

Meloni

Read more …

“The current organized action in the federal judiciary against the executive is a grave sickness induced by the Deep State that must be corrected by the SCOTUS..”

Bedlam, Pending (James Howard Kunstler)

You understand, all these lawsuit shenanigans with select federal judges from Woke-crazed districts like Boston, San Francisco, Rhode Island, and the DC Beltway are aimed at provoking a second civil war. The objective is to burden Mr. Trump with so many restrictions on the executive that the country can’t be governed without declaring a national emergency. This is the Democratic Party’s desperate strategy to stay alive: to preserve the flow of taxpayer money to its minions stuffed into the organs of government like cancer cells, and the vast network of NGOs that employ its agents and spread its sickness. The Democratic Party is a malignancy within the republic and the money is the blood-flow that feeds it. DOGE is the chemotherapy that has starved some of the worst tumors, such as USAID.

Chemotherapy is always hard on the patient. Cancer is a very tough and resourceful enemy of a healthy body, and fights back by any means available. Ultimately, it seeks to kill the body it has come to inhabit — in this case, the body-politic of the USA. We are fighting for the life of our republic against a demonic enemy. The Democratic Party displays exactly the characteristics that human beings traditionally associate with pure evil. Above all, it lies about everything that it does. It lies, of course, in order to deceive you, so that you won’t understand how it is working to vanquish you and your posterity (your kids and their future). RussiaGate, Covid-19, the Ukraine War, all were marinated in lies. The lies operate through the perversion of language, so you won’t understand what is being said.

For instance: that the Democratic Party is working to save our democracy. That howler persists in their every public performance. The Democratic Party controls the major organs of information: The New York Times, CNN, Hollywood. They are the conveyers of lies, bamboozling the body politic to divide and conquer it. The Democratic party is a bad faith legion enlisted to defend the Father-of-Lies, America’s Deep State (a.k.a. the blob). That information regime is failing now along with the Democratic Party. The Deep State is failing with them. They are the parasites that kills its host. They intend to kill the republic as they go down. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is supposed to function like an immune system for the body politic, defending it against political sickness.

The current organized action in the federal judiciary against the executive is a grave sickness induced by the Deep State that must be corrected by the SCOTUS. We await that corrective action — a sweeping decision in reply to 100-plus lawsuits — that the chief executive is in-charge of the executive department and that his prerogatives to manage the staffing and actions of the executive agencies can’t be arrogated by federal judges. So far, obviously, the SCOTUS has not yet come to issue that decision. Many of you worry that they will fail to, because Chief Justice John Roberts appears to be somehow under the influence of the Deep State. Let’s have a look. Sheldon Snook is Special Assistant to Chief Justice Roberts, and is deeply involved in the day-to-day management of the SCOTUS. Sheldon Snook is married to Mary McCord. Ms. McCord has been a leading actor, via her various roles in the Deep State, in the seditious operations against President Trump since 2017.

As Acting Attorney General for National Security in 2017, Mary McCord, turned James Comey’s FBI jihad against National Security advisor Mike Flynn into a malicious and ultimately unsuccessful prosecution. (The DOJ dropped the charges, which Judge Emmet G. Sullivan refused to execute, thus necessitating a pardon from Mr. Trump.) Mary McCord was instrumental in the DOJ’s dishonest FISA application to surveil Carter Page (when Judge James Boasberg sat on the FISA Court). Ms. McCord quit the DOJ to become a counsel to the committee in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. In that role, she assisted Norm Eisen, the Chief Counsel to committee Chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler. Norm Eisen has gone on since that time to become the chief coordinator of lawfare operations against Mr. Trump. Mary McCord remains a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, sponsored by George and Alex Soros. Sheldon Snook remains at John Roberts’ right hand.

Do you find these connections disturbing? Do they suggest where Justice John Roberts may stand in the war between the Deep State and President Donald Trump? I suppose we are going to find out. So, if the SCOTUS upholds the arrogation of executive powers and prerogatives by federal district judges, don’t expect Mr. Trump to roll over for that decision. It may come to pass, as per all the above, that he will be constrained to declare a national emergency to vacate the Deep State actors who are trying to make it impossible for him to govern, establishing special tribunals to disarm them. This, of course, will be seen by the Deep State and the Democratic Party as cassus belli, an excuse to declare war against the president. We seem to be headed in that direction. There will be friction, heat, and light.

Read more …

“..the DOJ argued that federal courts should not be allowed to interfere with diplomatic matters [..] The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President,” [..] “The republic cannot afford a different choice.”

Trump Asks SCOTUS To Allow Deportations To Proceed During Legal Challenge (ZH)

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to step in and allow the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador while a legal battle plays out in lower courts. The move comes two days after an appeals court upheld a temporary block on the Trump administration’s ability to deport illegal migrants under the Alien Enemies Act. In their request, the DOJ argued that federal courts should not be allowed to interfere with diplomatic matters, the Associated Press reports. “The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in the request. “The republic cannot afford a different choice.” Earlier this month US District Judge James Boasberg paused the flights by ruling that alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua deserve a hearing to deny they belong to the gang. Boasberg also demanded details on two flights on March 15 to determine whether the administration defied his oral and written orders to block them.

The Trump administration also asked the Supreme Court to overturn Boasberg’s order pausing flights, and to put that order on hold while they consider that request. “Those orders – which are likely to extend additional weeks – now jeopardize sensitive diplomatic negotiations and delicate national-security operations, which were designed to extirpate TdA’s presence in our country before it gains a greater foothold,” wrote Harris. The Supreme Court has asked lawyers for some of the deported Venezuelans to respond by 10am Tuesday to the Trump admin request. The DOJ has argued that Trump had the authority to declare TdA a foreign terrorist organization and deport them without hearings.

Government lawyers also refused to release flight information on the deportations, arguing that it would reveal sources and methods behind the deportations.”Once that secondary disclosure occurred, any opportunity for appellate review would be moot; the damage would be done, and the effect on United States foreign policy could be catastrophic,” the DOJ wrote. The DOJ insists that the government obeyed Boasberg’s written order blocking the flights, but says that his earlier oral order while the flights were in the air weren’t enforceable. Government lawyers also contend that Trump had the authority to conduct the flights as commander-in-chief of the US military and the country’s head of foreign affairs. Trump, meanwhile, has called for Boasberg’s impeachment – saying that the lifetime Obama-appointee is “a troublemaker and agitator.”

Read more …

“..court lacks jurisdiction over the allegations, “which challenge matters within the President’s unreviewable authority..”

Judge Extends Injunction Against Trump’s Alien Enemies Act Invocation (ET)

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on March 28 extended a temporary restraining order that prevents U.S. officials from deporting illegal immigrants from the United States solely on the basis of President Donald Trump’s invocation of a wartime law. Boasberg said in a 3-page ruling there is good cause to extend the order because Venezuelan nationals who sued over the invocation are entitled to relief preventing their removal “at least until they have had a chance to challenge that they are covered by the Proclamation.” “That is so because they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that they are entitled to such an opportunity; that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of emergency relief; and that the balance of equities and the public interest tilt in their favor,” the judge said, citing his previous rulings in the case.

No developments have taken place since the entry of the order and a similar narrower order that call those decisions into question, according to the ruling. The injunctions had been due to expire on March 29. They are now in place until April 12, or until further order from the court. Lawyers for the illegal immigrants had asked Boasberg to extend the orders, which were entered on March 15, just hours after Trump’s proclamation was made public. If the orders were allowed to expire, officials would resume deportation flights to El Salvador, the lawyers warned. U.S. Department of Justice attorneys had opposed the motion for an extension. They wrote in a filing that the court lacks jurisdiction over the allegations, “which challenge matters within the President’s unreviewable authority and, nonetheless, sound in habeas and must therefore be brought as habeas claims in district of confinement.”

The extension came on the same day the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case, claiming that the block on utilizing the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Tren de Aragua terrorist gang “is forcing the United States to harbor individuals whom national-security officials have identified as members of a foreign terrorist organization bent upon grievously harming Americans.” Chief Justice John Roberts soon after set a deadline of 10 a.m. on April 1 for lawyers for the illegal immigrants to respond. The Alien Enemies Act states in part that whenever “a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government,” the president shall proclaim that nationals from that hostile nation shall be deported.

Trump said in a proclamation that Tren de Aragua, working with the Venezuelan government, has been “undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States.” A divided federal appeals court on March 26 upheld the temporary restraining orders from Boasberg. U.S. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, in the majority, said in a concurring opinion that the U.S. District Court in Washington had jurisdiction to hear the case, even though the illegal immigrants have been detained in Texas. U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Miller, also in the majority, said in a concurring opinion that the government does not face irreparable harm absent a stay, in part because officials can still deport the illegal immigrants through the typical deportation process outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, in a dissent, said that the legal claims should have been filed in Texas. He also said the government has shown that the restraining orders “threaten irreparable harm to delicate negotiations with foreign powers on matters concerning national security.”

Read more …

“As to Musk, the evidence before us creates a strong likelihood that he functioned as an advisor to the President, carrying out the President’s policies of shrinking government and reducing spending, not as an Officer who required constitutional appointment..”

USAID Officially Shuttered After Court Victory (ZH)

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been officially shuttered after a federal appeals court Friday determined that the Trump administration could continue dismantling it. The ruling nullifies a lower court ruling that found that Elon Musk and DOGE were exercising enough independent authority to require Senate confirmation under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. “While defendants’ role and actions related to USAID are not conventional, unconventional does not necessarily equal unconstitutional,” wrote US Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, a Trump appointee. “And none of this is to say that plaintiffs will not be able to develop evidence of unconstitutional conduct as the case progresses. Time will tell,” he continued.

USAID was one of DOGE’s first targets. In addition to finding all sorts of waste, fraud and abuse, America First Legal found last week that USAID was behind an online censorship scheme. A week before that, a senior USAID official ordered the agency’s remaining staff to report to their now-former headquarters in Washington DC for an “all day” group effort to destroy documents, many of which contain sensitive information. After DOGE cleaned house, 26 current and former USAID employees sued – arguing that Elon Musk and DOGE have no actual independent authority. Earlier this month, US District Judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee, indefinitely blocked Musk and DOGE personnel from shutting down the agency. In response, the 4th Circuit panel unanimously agreed that Chuang’s ruling should be nullified as the administration’s appeal proceeds – though just two of the judges on Friday found that Musk was likely acting constitutionally.

“As to Musk, the evidence before us creates a strong likelihood that he functioned as an advisor to the President, carrying out the President’s policies of shrinking government and reducing spending, not as an Officer who required constitutional appointment,” wrote Quattlebaum, who was joined by US Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer, a George HW Bush appointee. US Circuit Judge Roger Gregory said he only voted with his colleagues because the USAID workers sued the wrong defendants – and if they’d sued USAID itself, he would have sided with them. “We may never know how many lives will be lost or cut short by the Defendants’ decision to abruptly cancel billions of dollars in congressionally appropriated foreign aid,” Gregory wrote. “We may never know the lasting effect of Defendants’ actions on our national aspirations and goals. But those are not the questions before the Court today.”

Meanwhile, the US State Department on Friday announced that it is officially closing down USAID – with the formal last day set to take place before July 1, the NY Post reports. According to ABC News, ex-DOGE official Jeremy Lewin announced USAID’s shuttering in an internal memo earlier Friday. “Foreign assistance done right can advance our national interests, protect our borders, and strengthen our partnerships with key allies,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted to X. “Unfortunately, USAID strayed from its original mission long ago. As a result, the gains were too few and the costs were too high. Thanks to President [Donald] Trump, this misguided and fiscally irresponsible era is now over.” According to Rubio, the department is “reorienting” the agency’s foreign assistance programs, and will continue its “essential lifesaving programs.”

Read more …

Through her focus as a journalist, she knows more than anyone else on the topic. Still, must have been a big surprise to her.

Donald Trump Taps Journalist Sara Carter As Next ‘Drug Czar’ (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Friday announced that he has selected award-winning journalist Sara Carter to be his new “drug czar,” who will help with the administration’s efforts to curb the fentanyl crisis in the country. Carter, an investigative journalist who has covered the fentanyl crisis and border security, will officially serve as the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. “Sara is an Award Winning Journalist, who has been on the front lines of this International Fight for decades,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “From Afghanistan to our Border, Sara’s relentless pursuit of Justice, especially in tackling the Fentanyl and Opioid Crisis, has exposed terrorists, drug lords, and sex traffickers. “As our next Drug Czar, Sara will lead the charge to protect our Nation, and save our children from the scourge of drugs,” he added. “Congratulations Sara!”

Carter has received multiple national awards for her coverage of national security issues, including the Society of Professional Journalists’ Sigma Delta Chi award for her coverage of the brutality of the Gulf and Sinaloa Cartel wars along the U.S.-Mexico border. “It is truly an honor to serve President Donald J. Trump and be part of an administration committed to putting America first,” Carter wrote in a post on X. “I pledge to work tirelessly every day to identify the challenges we face and find the solutions that will Make America Safe Again, freeing us from the grip of deadly substances like fentanyl, heroin, opioids, and other dangerous drugs. “My greatest desire is to ensure this nation remains secure and safe—for my children, and for yours,” she continued. “I promise you I will never stop fighting.”

Read more …

Quite a few of them. All suppressed by Petere Strzok?!

FBI Whistleblowers Want Bureau To Review Their Cases (JTN)

FBI agents who blew the whistle on “wrongdoing” within the bureau — including one agent saying he wants to share further information about working under disgraced FBI official Peter Strzok — are calling upon the bureau, now led by Kash Patel, to review and resolve their claims of retaliation by Biden’s FBI. Empower Oversight sent an early March letter to FBI general counsel Samuel Ramer, asking the bureau for help related to the improper treatment of FBI agents and employees Garret O’Boyle, Marcus Allen, Stephen Friend, Zach Schofftsall, Monica Shillingburg, and Michael Zummer. The letter also includes new details on four clients whose names were redacted, at least one one of whom wants to share FBI abuses from his time working under Strzok, the fired FBI supervisory special agent deeply involved in Crossfire Hurricane.

At least some of the FBI whistleblowers have been locked in a legal battle with the bureau for years, alleging that their security clearances were stripped and their livelihoods threatened by the FBI. But now, with a new FBI chief in charge, the whistleblowers and their lawyers are asking the bureau to give the concerns of their clients a renewed look. FBI staff operations specialist Marcus Allen had his security clearance suspended “for questioning whether Director Wray had testified truthfully to Congress and other allegations based on SOS Allen’s political beliefs and concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine,” his lawyers said. Allen, who had been assigned to the FBI’s Charlotte Division, “was suspended indefinitely without pay” as a result of this and other disclosures.

Empower Oversight said that the FBI reached a settlement with Allen, but asserts that it has only mostly — but not fully — lived up to the terms of the agreement. His legal team says the FBI still needs to fix their client’s W2 tax forms and still needs to pay him the proper amount of leave owed. “While I feel vindicated now in getting back my security clearance, it is sad that in the country I fought for as a Marine, the FBI was allowed to lie about my loyalty to the U.S. for two years,” Allen said. “Unless there is accountability, it will keep happening to others. Better oversight and changes to security clearance laws are key to stop abuses suffered by whistleblowers like me.” “The actions taken against our clients were in reprisal for protected whistleblowing and/or improper targeting because of their political beliefs,” Jason Foster, the chair and founder of Empower Oversight, argued in the letter to the bureau.

“The common theme among most of our clients who had their security clearances suspended and or revoked is the FBI’s ability to indefinitely delay the process and financially pressure FBI employees by suspending their pay and blocking their ability to earn a living any other way. Most facing that dilemma simply resign with no prospect of a fair process to challenge it, which allows the pattern to repeat without remedy.” The lawyers for the FBI agents asked for a fresh review of the cases of their clients, saying that “if the review by your office alone does not lead to direct managerial action to remedy the harms and resolve our clients’ pending matters, we would be willing to propose to our clients that they enter into mediation facilitated by a neutral mediator — assuming an acceptable senior official with no animus toward our clients is delegated settlement authority to represent the FBI in the mediation.”

Empower Oversight added in the early March letter that “while we appreciate your review of these cases to explore ways to amicably resolve and remedy the harms the FBI has inflicted on our clients, we are also willing to engage in other good faith efforts to reach the same goals.” “A lot of our work has to remain confidential because some clients do not wish to become public figures. Sometimes though, it takes public scrutiny to move the needle,” Foster told Just the News. “These FBI clients have waited a very long time on a system that, as of today, is still failing to keep its promises to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. It’s past time to make good on those promises and give them real meaning in these cases.”

Read more …

“Not one more cent of federal money should be given to this turkey.”

California High Speed Rail Asks for $7 Billion More (Moran)

Helen Kerstein, a representative from the California Legislative Analyst Office, had the unenviable task of appearing before California lawmakers and giving them the bad news about the high-speed rail system currently under construction somewhere north of Los Angeles. Kerstein admitted to lawmakers that the project needs another $7 billion by June 2026 or work will grind to a halt.She said there was “no specific plan to meet that roughly $7 billion gap” and added that there is “some risk that that gap could grow.””Some risk” = drop-dead certainty. “This isn’t a way out in the future funding gap. This is a pretty immediate funding gap,” she said.

Phase 1 of the project was originally estimated to cost $33 billion. Current estimates are north of $128 billion, and with this latest ask, projected costs are useless in any realistic sense.The first phase will be from Merced to Bakersfield. That initial construction was chosen because it is the easiest to build topographically. It’s relatively flat, and some existing tracks can be used.About $23 billion has been spent to date, with the total cost of the Merced-Bakersfield stretch to hit $35 billion and be completed in 2033. Since nothing relating to this project has ever come in on time or under budget, you have to wonder why they even bother guessing.

New York Sun: “Besides the bleak news of the funding gap, KCRA reported that the High Speed Rail Authority further frustrated lawmakers when it only submitted an “incomplete project update” in time for the budget hearing and said it would submit a more complete update on the plan for the project sometime in the summer. A Democratic Assemblyman, Steven Bennett, told KCRA, “We have no plan, we have a good likelihood it’s going to get worse, and we have a short time to solve the problem.” The hearing came shortly after Mr. Newsom released an episode of his new podcast during which he touted work on the 171-mile Merced-Bakersfield segment. “We did the rail head. We’re starting to lay track. This thing is starting to get very, very real,” he said. “Now the hard work is behind us.” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy was in rare form after the announcement of the additional funding request.


“We did the rail head. We’re starting to lay track,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on his podcast. “This thing is starting to get very, very real,” he added. “Now, the hard work is behind us.”

They’ve been trying to build this thing for a decade and have constructed just 22 miles of the 171-mile Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, the first phase of the 800-mile L.A. to San Francisco project. On what planet is “the hard work behind us”? It’s not like these big public works projects can’t be done. While California’s high-speed rail project has struggled, other states have seen similar undertakings completed in far less time. Florida’s Brightline, a privately owned passenger train that reaches speeds of up to 125 mph, was first proposed in 2012. By 2018, Brightline was operating between Miami and West Palm Beach. In 2023, it began running trains from Miami to Orlando, a distance of 235 miles, in 3.5 hours.

The company is also in the process of constructing a 218-mile system from Southern California to Las Vegas that will feature electric trains that can reach speeds of up to 200 miles per hour. It expects that line will be open in December 2028, missing its original goal of being functional in time for the 2028 Summer Olympics. The unstated goal that Newsom is banking on is making high-speed rail “too big to fail.” A few tens of billions of dollars more, and pulling the plug on it will be almost as expensive as building it. That’s why Duffy has to give the entire project the ax now. Not one more cent of federal money should be given to this turkey.

Read more …

“.. the group must make a decision on restarting production at the facility before the end of 2025..”

Global Firms Lining Up To Return To Russia – Putin Aide (RT)

Foreign firms that exited Russia due to sanctions linked to the Ukraine conflict are now seeking to return, according to President Vladimir Putin’s special economic representative, Kirill Dmitriev. Dmitriev, who is also the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), was responding to Korea Times report on Friday that South Korean companies are looking to resume operations in Russia, given US-led ceasefire talks between Moscow and Kiev. “Global companies are lining up to return to Russia, signaling renewed confidence and fresh opportunities in one of the world’s largest markets,” Dmitriev wrote on X on Friday.

More than 1,000 Western firms – from well-known retail firms to car giants – have exited the Russian market in the past three years. But as Ukraine conflict ceasefire talks gain momentum, major South Korean companies are reportedly stepping up feasibility studies on resuming operations in Russia. The push reflects Russia’s strategic importance for the country as a market, particularly in light of mounting tariff pressure from the US, the outlet said. LG Electronics is reportedly among the first, and recently partially resumed operations at its home appliance plant in Moscow, which produced washing machines and refrigerators, the outlet said citing industry sources. “The move is aimed at preventing deterioration of production facilities that have been idle,” an LG official told the Korea Times.

Hyundai Motor Group, which along with Kia held the top two spots among car brands in Russia in 2021, is also closely assessing the prospect of re-entering the Russian market. The group sold its St. Petersburg plant for just 10,000 rubles ($120) with a two-year buyback option 2023. It means the group must make a decision on restarting production at the facility before the end of 2025. Earlier this week, Italian household equipment manufacturer Ariston announced its return to Russia after exiting the market in 2022. The development seems to reflect an emerging trend of potential comebacks and buybacks by major foreign brands amid a US pivot on relations with Russia.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin stated on Wednesday that each company’s case will be evaluated on an individual basis. Foreign firms that exited Russia “under government pressure” but maintained “jobs, contacts, and technologies,” along with a buy-back option, could be permitted to return, he said. Mishustin added that companies possessing unique expertise would also be welcomed— so long as they adhere to localization and investment conditions.

Read more …

You can bet the EU will love them.

Senator Cruz Files Companion Bill To Prohibit The Fed From Issuing a CBDC (CT)

US Senator Ted Cruz introduced a bill on March 26 to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The “Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act,” would prohibit the Fed from offering certain products or services directly to American individuals, a key component of any CBDC. The Texas Republican’s bill can be considered a companion bill to Minnesota Republican Representative Tom Emmer’s anti-CBDC legislation, which was reintroduced on March 6. A companion bill is a piece of legislation that is similarly or identically worded to another bill, and introduced in the other chamber of Congress. Both bills state that the prohibition should not include any dollar-denominated currency that is open, permissionless, and private and “preserves the privacy protections of United States coins and physical currency.”

Since 2020, the Federal Reserve has been exploring a digital version of the US dollar. According to the CBDC Tracker, at least four research projects are currently underway by various Federal Reserve entities. Cruz has been a vocal opponent of CBDCs since at least 2022, when he introduced legislation that would ban the Fed from introducing a direct-to-consumer CBDC. He followed it up with similar legislation in 2023, and in 2024 sought to block the attempt by then-President Joe Biden’s administration to create a CBDC. Emmer said at a congressional hearing that “CBDC technology is inherently un-American” and warned that allowing unelected bureaucrats to issue a CBDC “could upend the American way of life.” While CBDCs have some purported benefits, critics of the technology have long said that digital currency issued directly to citizens could pose privacy infringement and government overreach.

However, some nations and regional governments are still exploring this technology. While European consumers show little interest in CBDCs, lawmakers in the region are pushing to create a digital Euro. Israel has released a preliminary design to create a digital shekel, and Iran will reportedly launch a CBDC in the near future. In the US, the creation of a CBDC has been met with more resistance. President Donald Trump has vowed to “never allow” a CBDC in the country, and Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, has said that the Fed will not issue a CBDC while he is in charge. Though CBDCs could modernize legacy financial systems and make them more efficient, they would also centralize the money supply.

Read more …

“..Jordan correctly raised the concern that the [EU’s] DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States..”

EU Official Denies Anti-Free Speech Policies in Bizarre Letter to US Congress (Turley)

After returning recently from speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan has taken up the issue and received a letter from the EU’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The letter is both evasive and deceptive. In my book, The Indispensable Right, I detail how the DSA has been used to allow for sweeping speech investigations and prosecutions. In direct contradiction to past statements by the EU, Virkkunen denied any effort to regulate speech or enforce the DSA outside of Europe. What is particularly maddening is the false claim that the EU remains “deeply committed to protecting and promoting free speech.” Many in the free speech community view the EU and the DSA as the greatest threats to free speech in the West.

In his letter, Jordan correctly raised the concern that the DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States by compelling platforms to crack down on what the EU considers “misleading or deceptive” speech. In her response, Virkkunen bizarrely describes the DSA as “content-agnostic” while insisting that the DSA “applies exclusively within the European Union.” That is not what EU officials previously said or what the law itself allows. Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.

The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.” Some in this country have turned to the EU to force the censorship of their fellow citizens. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. (Clinton spoke at the World Forum and lashed out at the failure to control disinformation). The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin. This campaign recently came to a head when Musk had the audacity to interview former president Donald Trump. In anticipation of the interview, one of the world’s most notorious anti-free speech figures went ballistic.

Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.” The EU has long been one of the most aggressively anti-free speech bodies in the world. It has actively supported the evisceration of free speech among its 27 member states. The EU is not “agnostic” when it comes to free speech; it has long championed a type of free-speech atheism. We have faced EU officials engaging in Orwellian doublespeak for years. Nevertheless, Virkkunen’s letter to Jordan stands out for its sheer mendacity.

Read more …

They need her vote in the House over the next year.

Stefanik Nomination Pulled to Protect Passage of Reconciliation (DS)

President Donald Trump on Thursday withdrew Elise Stefanik’s nomination to be United Nations ambassador because Republicans in the House will likely need the New York congresswoman’s vote to help ensure passage of the budget reconciliation bill, a senior White House official told The Daily Signal. Passing the debt ceiling and reconciliation packages are going to be difficult due to Democrats’ opposition and Republicans’ razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives no matter what, and Republicans can’t spare Stefanik’s vote. The American people need every Republican vote in the House to enact Trump’s agenda, the official said. Had Stefanik been confirmed by the Senate to be the United Nations envoy, her House seat would have been vacant for most of the year, and Republicans don’t have time to waste, according to the official.

The budget reconciliation process stands as Trump’s and congressional Republicans’ best—and likely only—hope to pass their agenda through Congress. Reconciliation is a process exempt from the filibuster 60-vote threshold required to end debate in the Senate. Through reconciliation, Congress decides which areas should get more money and which should get less based on the majority’s priorities. The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday released a stark forecast of when the government’s borrowing limit would be reached—increasing the urgency of congressional Republicans’ budget negotiations. The forecast warns that if the government doesn’t raise the debt limit, then it will no longer be able to borrow money and pay its obligations. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has previously said he hopes to pass a budget reconciliation bill by Memorial Day, which this year falls on May 26.

While Stefanik would likely have had no trouble getting the necessary Senate votes for confirmation, Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House with 218 seats, while Democrats hold 213 seats. There are currently four vacant seats. Special elections for two of those seats, both in Florida, will be held on April 1. Trump won the 6th Congressional District of Florida, formerly held by national security adviser Mike Waltz, by 30 points in November, but polls show Democrats might have a chance at flipping the seat in the special election there, threatening Republicans’ already narrow majority. Republican state Sen. Randy Fine holds a small lead, receiving support of 48.3% of the vote, compared with 44.2% of respondents who said they plan to vote for Democrat Josh Weil, according to a new St. Pete Poll.

Nonetheless, the National Republican Congressional Committee is confident that Waltz’s former seat will not flip blue. “Randy Fine will be a member of Congress,” Mike Marinella, an NRCC spokesman, told The Daily Signal. “Everything else is just noise.” Johnson has poured significant amounts of time, money, and effort into Fine’s campaign and is confident Fine will win, Greg Steele, his political communications director, told The Daily Signal. The speaker was highly concerned about New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, slow-walking the special election to replace Stefanik. Stefanik’s U.N. nomination was expected to move forward on April 2, the day after the Florida special elections, Axios reported last week. She would have been the last member of Trump’s Cabinet to get confirmed. Trump said on Truth Social he would find another place for Stefanik in his administration when possible.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Olivia

 

 

Goats

 

 

Quokka
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1905655101550723454

 

 

Babies
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1905662191404982768

 

 

Tiny egg

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 282025
 


Georges Seurat Bathers at Asnières 1884

 

Putin Proposess Temporary Governance of Ukraine Under UN Auspices (Sp.)
Key Points of Putin’s Idea To Place Ukraine Under UN Control (RT)
EU Leaders Fear Peace in Ukraine – French Army Veteran (Sp.)
US Planning To Annex Greenland Since 1860s – Putin (RT)
Zelensky Lashes Out At Trump Envoy Witkoff (RT)
Zelensky Speaks Of ‘Hatred Of Russians’ (RT)
Rep. Goldman: FBI Probe of Tesla Attacks “Political Weaponization” (Turley)
Signal Leak A ‘Witch Hunt’ – Trump (RT)
Trump Says ‘Disgraceful’ That Boasberg To Preside Over Signal Lawsuit (JTN)
Judge Declines Trump Admin Request T0 Recuse Herself From Perkins Coie Case (ET)
Appeals Court Halts Judge’s Order Requiring Musk to Hand Over DOGE Records (ET)
Auto Workers Union Applauds Trump’s New Tariffs (JTN)
Auto Tariffs: German Carmakers Face Billions in Losses (CTH)
Liberalism Is Dead, This Is What Comes After (Trenin)
Will This Scandal Be The End Of ‘Unsinkable’ Netanyahu? (Sadygzade)

 

 

 

 

Kash hoax

Nap Sachs

Elon Signal
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1904951618162118853

HHS
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1905246820282081292

Tucker votes

Doge team

 

 

 

 

Losing patience? “I said not long ago that we would push them out, but there is reason to believe that we will finish them off,”

Putin Proposess Temporary Governance of Ukraine Under UN Auspices (Sp.)

The possibility of introducing temporary governance in Ukraine could be discussed under the auspices of the United Nations together with the United States, European countries and Russian partners, Russian President Vladimir Putin said. The introduction of temporary governance in Ukraine would allow democratic elections to be held in the country, Putin added. “And for what? To hold democratic elections, to bring to power a viable government that enjoys the people’s trust. And then begin negotiations with them on a peace treaty, sign legitimate documents that will be recognized throughout the world and will be reliable and stable. This is only one option, I am not saying that there are no others,” the president noted.

The Russian President made other statements regarding foreign policy and the conflict in Ukraine while talking to sailors of the nuclear-powered submarine cruiser Arkhangelsk. Russia has a strategic initiative along the entire front line, the President stressed. Russia controls 99% of the territory of the Lugansk People’s Republic and more than 70% of the territory of the DPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, Putin noted. “I said not long ago that we would push them out, but there is reason to believe that we will finish them off,” he added. Russia is ready to cooperate with all countries that want to eliminate the causes of the Ukrainian conflict for a peaceful settlement. Moscow is ready to collaborate with Europe on Ukraine, but the EU behaves inconsistently and constantly tries to “lead Russia by the nose,” he added.

“The curators from Europe have convinced Kiev to continue the war to the last Ukrainian in order to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia,” the Russian president said. Russia will no longer make mistakes based on excessive trust in its so-called partners, Putin stressed. The Russian President mentioned the BRICS countries and the DPRK among the partners Russia is ready to work with for a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.

Read more …

“.. the notorious Azov battalion – which receive Western weapons and actively recruit followers – could increasingly exert de facto control in Ukraine..”

Key Points of Putin’s Idea To Place Ukraine Under UN Control (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed placing Ukraine under a temporary international administration as one possible way of resolving the ongoing conflict. The idea, he said, draws on international precedent and would aim to restore legitimate governance before any peace deal could be finalized. During his meeting with Russian nuclear submarine officers on Thursday, President Putin described a possible international mechanism for stabilizing Ukraine – placing it under temporary external administration coordinated by the United Nations. Here are the key takeaways from Putin’s proposal:

1) Problem: Collapse of legitimacy in Kiev

Putin argued that Ukraine’s constitutional legitimacy has broken down due to the expiration of Vladimir Zelensky’s presidential powers last year and the lack of elections since – rendering all of his government’s claims to authority invalid.
“Presidential elections weren’t held… under the constitution, all officials are appointed by the president. If he himself is illegitimate, then so is everyone else.”

2) Consequence: Power vacuum filled by radicals

Putin has warned that groups with neo-Nazi views, such as the notorious Azov battalion – which receive Western weapons and actively recruit followers – could increasingly exert de facto control in Ukraine, potentially replacing formal civilian authorities. “Amid the de facto illegitimacy… Neo-Nazi formations are receiving more weapons,” and could take “the actual power in their hands.” Putin argued that this makes negotiating with Ukraine’s current government even more unreliable and unstable: “It’s unclear who you’re even signing any documents with – tomorrow new people could come and say, ‘We don’t know who signed this – goodbye.’”

3) Suggestion: UN-led temporary external administration

Putin proposed the use of a UN-led transitional authority, referencing prior international missions such as in East Timor, Papua New Guinea, and parts of former Yugoslavia. “In such cases, international practice often follows a known path – under UN peacekeeping, through what is called external governance, a temporary administration.”

4) Purpose: Restoring constitutional order and setting legal framework for stable peace

The main goal, according to Putin, would be to organize democratic elections and install a functioning, legitimate government trusted by citizens and recognized globally. He stated that only such leaders could sign peace agreements that would be recognized worldwide and upheld over time. “Why do this? In order to hold democratic elections, in order to bring to power a government that is capable and enjoys the trust of the people, and then begin negotiations with them on a peace treaty, sign legitimate documents that will be recognized worldwide and will be reliable and stable.”

5) Not the only option – but a viable one

Putin emphasized that this idea is not the only possibility, but an example drawn from historical precedent. “This is just one option… I’m not saying other options do not exist, but it is hard right now, or maybe even impossible, to lay everything out clearly because the situation is changing so fast,” he said.

6) Multilateral cooperation beyond the West

Putin said such an initiative should involve not just the UN or the US, but a broader coalition, including BRICS nations and others Russia considers reliable. “We will work with any partners – the US, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, BRICS countries… and, for example, North Korea.” He also stressed that Russia remains open to working with the EU, even though Moscow’s trust in the Western European countries has been fundamentally undermined by their manipulation of peace efforts as a tactic to buy time and rearm Ukraine.

Read more …

“They have made a bargain on the war in Ukraine, and they have lost the war. They cannot accept peace imposed by Russia and America.”

“..it will be a strategic agreement between Russia and America. Then in this framework, in this kind of agreement, Europe has nothing to do and nothing to suggest..”

EU Leaders Fear Peace in Ukraine – French Army Veteran (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure peace in Ukraine have caused panic among European leaders like Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz, who desperately want to “escape from their political death,” retired French Army Colonel Alain Corvez tells Sputnik. “They have made a bargain on the war in Ukraine, and they have lost the war. They cannot accept peace imposed by Russia and America. So they are doing things that are completely unrealistic and illogical,” says Corvez, an international strategy consultant and former international relations consultant for France’s Defense and Interior Ministries. Macron and the likes of him do not care about Ukraine – all they care about is “their own fate” amid the prospects of the European Union’s dissolution.

Macron’s decision to oppose the Black Sea ceasefire deal conditions is a “stupid decision,” Corvez notes, as France and other European powers hold no sway in the Ukrainian conflict peace process. “They are not able to do anything unless they want to declare war on Russia, which is the first nuclear power in the world, which is completely stupid,” he observes. “But unless they declare war to Russia, they have no option. They have nothing that they are able to do.” France’s plans to establish some kind of buffer zone in Ukraine is “absolutely impossible” as well, since “peace will be established by Russia and America with an agreement, a strategic agreement, which will officialize the necessity of security for Russia and that Ukraine would be neutral and not in NATO.”

“And then it will be a strategic agreement between Russia and America. Then in this framework, in this kind of agreement, Europe has nothing to do and nothing to suggest, and it’s impossible to send troops to control a buffer zone along the Dnepr or along any other rivers or lines,” Corvez adds.

Read more …

Imagine the talk at birthday parties in Denmark.

US Planning To Annex Greenland Since 1860s – Putin (RT)

Washington has long harbored plans to get its hands on Greenland, and the ongoing tensions around it should be taken seriously, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned. Speaking at the International Arctic Forum in Murmansk on Thursday, Putin touched upon the ongoing tensions around Greenland, a Danish semi-autonomous territory, and US President Donald Trump’s repeated promises to annex it. Trump invoked the topic of Greenland once again on Wednesday, claiming the US ownership of the island is needed to “properly defend a large section of this Earth” and would be universally beneficial – including for Denmark. “We have to have the land because it’s not possible to properly defend a large section of this Earth – not just the US – without it. So we have to have it, and I think we will have it,” he said.

The statements of the US president should be taken seriously, Putin warned, pointing out the US has been harboring plans to annex Greenland for over a century and a half already. “Everyone knows about the US plans to annex Greenland. You know, this may surprise someone only at first glance. And it is a deep mistake to believe that this is some kind of extravagant talk of the new American administration,” Putin warned. The American plans to seize Greenland date back to 1860, but at the time they did not get supported by the Congress, the Russian president pointed out. “Let me remind you that by 1868, the Alaska purchase was being ridiculed in American newspapers. It was called madness, an ‘ice box,’ and ‘the polar bear garden’ of Andrew Johnson, then-US president. And his Greenland proposals failed,” Putin said.

The US, Germany, and Denmark also neared a land-swap deal in 1910, with the proposed agreement ceding Greenland to America, Putin noted. However, the deal ultimately fell through. From the early 19th century to the 1950s, Greenland was a territory under the full control of Denmark. During World War Two, it was occupied by the US after Denmark proper was captured by Nazi Germany. Currently, the island hosts a US military base and the infrastructure for an early warning system for ballistic missiles. In recent decades, the island has grown increasingly autonomous and was granted home rule in 1979, ultimately receiving the right in 2009 to declare independence if a referendum passes.

Read more …

“I understand Steve Witkoff. He is a clever and energetic person who thinks that everyone should be aware of the things he regards as obvious. Judging by the statements he made during his conversation with Tucker Carlson, the essence of this conflict is clear to him,” Lavrov said..”

Zelensky Lashes Out At Trump Envoy Witkoff (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has reproached US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, accusing him of disseminating “Kremlin narratives.” Zelensky made the remarks on Wednesday in an interview with European broadcasters, including France 2. He accused Witkoff, a key official in opening negotiations on resolving the Ukraine conflict, of taking Moscow’s side and “helping” Russian President Vladimir Putin. “I believe that Witkoff really does quote Kremlin narratives very often. I believe that this will not bring us closer to peace. And I believe that, unfortunately, this will weaken the American pressure on Russia. We can only fix this information backdrop through our actions. We’re trying to do that,” Zelensky stated.

“Witkoff’s statements are very much a hindrance to us, because we are fighting Putin and we really do not want him to have many helpers,” he added. Zelensky was apparently referring to remarks made by Witkoff in a recent interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson, during which the special envoy spoke about the status of former Ukrainian territories that have joined Russia, describing the issue as “an elephant in the room” that “no one wants to talk about.” “They’re Russian-speaking. There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule,” Witkoff said. “The Russians are de facto in control of these territories. The question is: Will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories? Can Zelensky survive politically if he acknowledges this? This is the central issue in the conflict,” he added.

The remarks outraged Kiev, with the head of Ukraine’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Aleksandr Merezhko, condemning what he called “disgraceful, shocking statements” and urging Washington to dismiss “completely unprofessional” Witkoff from his role. Witkoff’s statements were welcomed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, however, who suggested that, judging by his remarks, the special envoy had understood the very “essence” of the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev. “I understand Steve Witkoff. He is a clever and energetic person who thinks that everyone should be aware of the things he regards as obvious. Judging by the statements he made during his conversation with Tucker Carlson, the essence of this conflict is clear to him,” Lavrov said in an interview with Russia’s Channel 1 this week.

Read more …

He is Russian by birth.

Zelensky Speaks Of ‘Hatred Of Russians’ (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has admitted that his “hatred” of Russians is one of the driving forces propelling him to “keep going” in the conflict against Moscow. In an interview with the French daily Le Figaro published on Wednesday, Zelensky identified the emotion as one of his three key psychological drivers since the escalation of the conflict in February 2022. Zelensky said he hated “Russians who killed so many Ukrainian citizens,” adding that he considered such an attitude appropriate in wartime. His other motivations included a sense of national dignity and the desire for his descendants to live “in the free world.” Ukrainian officials have accused Russia of being a historic oppressor while Zelensky has previously touted Ukrainians’ “love of freedom” as a trait that distinguishes them from Russians.

Zelensky, whose presidential term expired last year, was elected in 2019 on a platform of defusing tensions with Moscow and reconciling ethnic Russian Ukrainians in Donbass, many of whom opposed the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. However, his initial diplomatic efforts were thwarted by radical Ukrainian nationalists in the body politic.Since the coup, Kiev has enacted various policies undermining the rights of ethnic minorities, with Russians as the primary target. Moscow has accused Zelensky of intensifying the crackdown, particularly by attacking the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the country’s largest religious denomination, which now faces potential prohibition for having historic links with Russia.

In a recent interview, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that Zelensky caters to “the segment of the population that holds radical, ultra-right, revanchist, Banderite views,” as his image as a national leader increasingly deteriorates. “Zelensky does not want to display weakness, as he realizes that his days are numbered,” the Russian official claimed.

Read more …

“..the FBI investigating attacks on Tesla cars and facilities is nothing but “lawfare” and “political weaponization.”

Rep. Goldman: FBI Probe of Tesla Attacks “Political Weaponization” (Turley)

For many of us who were long active in Democratic politics, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognize the party as a new generation of foul-mouthed, censorship-supporting, mob-enabling leaders take over. That sense returned this week when Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY) claimed that the FBI investigating attacks on Tesla cars and facilities is nothing but “lawfare” and “political weaponization.” Goldman’s latest controversy captures how Democrats have now entirely cut the cords of decency and moderation that once tethered their party to the mainstream of our society. Democratic leaders have been fueling the attacks on Musk and his companies, even putting national security interests aside to seek to punish him. Goldman (and other Democrats) have previously pushed back on criticism of Antifa and left-wing attacks.

However, Goldman’s criticism of the FBI task force on these widespread attacks is otherworldly. Goldman this week declared: “This is the political weaponization of the DOJ. Trump uses his official authority to defend his benefactor Elon Musk. The FBI then creates a task force to use our law enforcement to ‘crack down’ [sic] on adversaries of Musk’s [sic]. Where are the Republicans so opposed to ‘lawfare’?” There are have widespread attacks on Tesla charging stations, vehicles, and dealerships, including multiple arson attacks. It is clearly political violence orchestrated against an American company and American property owners, including individual citizens, to push consumers away from buying Musk products and associations.

That sounds a lot like the definition of terrorism. The Justice Department defines domestic terrorism as “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.” I have long criticized the expansion of terrorism definitions. However, this fits even the narrowest definitions. It is political violence designed to intimidate and harm those with opposing political views. The fact that they are lone wolves like Daniel Clarke-Pounder, 24, who set himself on fire after throwing Molotov cocktails, does not change that criminal intent. The Democrats have long been accused of belittling or dismissing the seriousness of such crimes. That was the case with Molotov-cocktail throwing lawyers in New York who were given relatively light sentences under the Biden Administration.

It is also evident in the reaction to the recent attack on a conservative in the New York subway. There is a sense of license among some on the left in carrying out attacks on those on the right. This is how rage rhetoric of leaders like Goldman can fuel violent rage in the most unhinged elements of their party. As I previously wrote: “What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts; flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths.” Once released by the rage from the confines of reason and civility, it is easy to dismiss the investigation of political violence as “political weaponization.” In attacking the FBI investigation, Goldman is the very voice of an age of rage.

Read more …

“Goldberg said he gained access to a Signal group chat from a user identified as “Mike Waltz.”

Why on earth would Waltz do that? Up to him to explain/ Or deny.

Signal Leak A ‘Witch Hunt’ – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has cast doubt on the Signal messaging platform following the leak of a private conversation among senior members of his administration about military strikes in Yemen. He has dismissed the media response to the episode as a “witch hunt.” The Trump administration confirmed this week that a journalist had been mistakenly added to a private chat on Signal discussing a planned attack on Houthi militants. The US launched large-scale airstrikes on March 15 in the Yemeni capital Sanaa and the northern province Saada, reportedly killing dozens, in response to Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping. Asked by reporters on Wednesday about the leak, Trump said he was not concerned, insisting that “there was no harm done, because the attack was unbelievably successful.”

He dismissed the media’s interest as “a witch hunt,” accusing journalists of exaggerating the situation after a question about whether the administration was downplaying the scandal. “I think Signal could be defective, to be honest with you,” Trump said. “We use Signal, and everybody uses Signal, but it could be a defective platform, and we’re gonna have to find that out,” he added.On Monday, The Atlantic magazine published a report by editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg revealing a discussion among senior administration officials about military strategy for targeting the Houthis. Goldberg said he gained access to a Signal group chat from a user identified as “Mike Waltz.” The chat, titled “Houthi PC small group,” reportedly included Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and other cabinet officials. The group had been engaged in what The Atlantic described as a “fascinating policy discussion” in the days leading up to Trump’s order for the strikes.

Following the White House’s denial that any classified information was leaked, The Atlantic released additional screenshots on Wednesday. Hegseth has insisted that “nobody was texting war plans.” Asked whether the leaked material was classified, Trump replied: “Well, that’s what I’ve heard. I don’t know[.]” National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has taken “full responsibility” for the incident, calling it “embarrassing” in a Fox News interview on Tuesday. Trump defended Waltz amid calls for his resignation, telling reporters “I guess he said he claimed responsibility.” He also rejected speculation about Hegseth’s future, stating the defense secretary “had nothing to do with this” and that he is doing an “excellent job.” Signal dismissed media reports of possible “vulnerabilities” on Tuesday, calling its software “the gold standard for private, secure communications.”

Tulsi Signal
https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1904938349883797850

Read more …

677 district judges, and Trump gets the same one all the time.

Trump Says ‘Disgraceful’ That Boasberg To Preside Over Signal Lawsuit (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Thursday criticized Judge James Boasberg for having been assigned another important case regarding him and his administration – this one for a lawsuit brought against top officials over a journalist accidentally being included in their group chat about a planned Houthi air strike. Boasberg, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, and is also presiding over a case on whether the administration has the authority to deport illegal migrants under the Alien Enemies Act. (An appeals court on Wednesday denied a request to overturn his ruling early this month to temporarily halt the deport effort.)

“How disgraceful is it that “Judge” James Boasberg has just been given a fourth “Trump Case,” something which is, statistically, IMPOSSIBLE,” he wrote on TRUTH Social. “There is no way for a Republican, especially a TRUMP REPUBLICAN, to win before him.” He said Boasberg had massive “Trump derangement syndrome.” The watchdog group American Oversight filed a group chat lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the National Archives and Records Administration.

“Plaintiff American Oversight brings this action … to prevent the unlawful destruction of federal records and to compel Defendants to fulfill their legal obligations to preserve and recover federal records created through unauthorized use of Signal for sensitive national security decision-making,” the lawsuit reads. Trump’s senior national security officials accidentally shared sensitive details about strike plans on the Houthi group in Yemen with editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg through the encrypted messaging app Signal.

Read more …

Russiagate ain’t dead. This line is peculiar: “..he said that Howell found “reason to believe that the former President would ‘flee from prosecution.’” How would a President do that? Put on a wig?

Judge Declines Trump Admin Request T0 Recuse Herself From Perkins Coie Case (ET)

A federal judge has declined a request by the Trump administration that she remove herself from overseeing a lawsuit challenging an executive action targeting Perkins Coie LLP, accusing the Justice Department of attacking her character in an effort to undermine the integrity of the judicial system. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote in a March 26 ruling that a Trump administration filing seeking her recusal was “rife with innuendo” and that none of the claims it put forward “come close to meeting the standard for disqualification.” “Though this adage is commonplace, and the tactic overused, it is called to mind by defendants’ pending motion to disqualify this Court: ‘When you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger,’” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote in a March 26 ruling.

President Donald Trump’s action issued on March 6 prevents law firm Perkins Coie from doing business with federal contractors and blocks its lawyers from accessing government officials. Additionally, it suspends any active security clearances held by individuals at the firm, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest. Perkins Coie was hired by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2016. According to the presidential action issued by Trump, the law firm has engaged in “dishonest and dangerous activity” that has affected the United States “for decades.” The firm sued the administration over the order in federal court in Washington on March 11, alleging Trump’s actions violated its rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Roughly a week after Trump’s executive action was first issued, Howell temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing much of it, finding the law firm was likely to win its lawsuit. Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked for the case to be moved to another judge in Washington’s federal court, citing Howell’s public comments about the president and her connection with key aspects of the case. “This Court has not kept its disdain for President Trump secret,” Chad Mizelle, acting associate attorney general at the DOJ, wrote in a motion seeking her disqualification. “It has voiced its thoughts loudly—both inside and outside the courtroom.”

Speaking inside the court, Mizelle also pointed to now-former special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump, during which he said that Howell found “reason to believe that the former President would ‘flee from prosecution.’” The judge also “pierced attorney-client privilege, ordering President Trump’s attorney to testify before a D.C. grand jury” investigating his alleged retention of classified documents in the South Florida case, he said. Mizelle added that Howell also previously rejected Trump’s view that the indictments against individuals involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol were a “national injustice” and called his supporters “sore losers.” In her 21-page ruling, Howell wrote that when the DOJ “engages in this rhetorical strategy of ad hominem attack, the stakes become much larger than only the reputation of the targeted federal judge.”

“This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented,” she added. The judge said she welcomed the Trump administration’s opportunity “to set the record straight, because facts matter.” “Every litigating party deserves a fair and impartial hearing to determine both what the material facts are and how the law best applies to those facts,” she wrote. “That fundamental promise, however, does not entitle any party—not even those with the power and prestige of the President of the United States or a federal agency—to demand adherence to their own version of the facts and preferred legal outcome.”

Read more …

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. It’s a small world.

Appeals Court Halts Judge’s Order Requiring Musk to Hand Over DOGE Records (ET)

A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a discovery order from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that would have required Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to turn over documents and respond to written questions about their role in advising cuts in certain parts of the federal government. In a ruling issued on March 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an emergency stay of Chutkan’s March 12 order, which had largely granted limited, expedited discovery to a coalition of 13 Democratic-led states, requiring Musk and DOGE to produce documents and respond to questions within 21 days. The appeals court ruled that Musk and DOGE had “satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay” and showed that they are likely to prevail in their claim that the lower court must resolve their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery to proceed.

“In particular, petitioners have shown a likelihood of success on their argument that the district court was required to decide their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery,” the three-judge panel wrote in its ruling. Following the appellate court ruling, Chutkan entered a minute order acknowledging the decision. She canceled a status hearing previously scheduled for March 27. The case, brought by New Mexico and a coalition of 12 Democratic-led states, challenges the legality of DOGE’s sweeping cost-cutting efforts, which have included the cancellation of federal grants and mass terminations of government employees from jobs identified by DOGE as unneeded. The plaintiffs argued in their original complaint that Musk is effectively running DOGE without Senate confirmation, allegedly in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

“Oblivious to the threat this poses to the nation, President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities,” the plaintiffs allege. “As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers.” In a subsequent motion for a temporary restraining order against Musk and DOGE, the states further accused Musk of unlawfully exercising sweeping executive power without Senate confirmation by directing federal agencies to fire employees, cancel contracts, dismantle programs, and access sensitive government data.

In response, government lawyers urged the court to reject the emergency motion. They argued that the states had failed to show any imminent or irreparable harm, and said the restraining order sought was overly broad, legally unsupported, and disconnected from core constitutional claims made by the plaintiffs. Even if Musk were improperly appointed, they argue, sharing data with him or others at DOGE does not, by itself, constitute an illegal exercise of government power. Musk also is not empowered to act without the president’s approval, they said.

Chutkan partially sided with the Democrat-led states on March 12, ordering Musk, DOGE, and related entities to turn over documents related to firing federal workers and altering government databases. She also required DOGE to identify everyone who has led or worked at the agency since President Donald Trump took office, and list all agencies where DOGE or Musk canceled contracts, cut grants, or terminated employees. Trump and Musk have both said that DOGE has been assisting various agencies that have fired or offered buyouts to tens of thousands of federal workers since Trump returned to office on Jan. 20, 2025.

Read more …

“..it is now on the automakers, from the Big Three to Volkswagen and beyond, to bring back good union jobs to the U.S.,”

Auto Workers Union Applauds Trump’s New Tariffs (JTN)

The United Auto Workers Union (UAW) on Wednesday applauded President Donald Trump’s new tariffs on cars and autoparts coming into the United States from other countries.The president announced the new 25% tariffs at the White House earlier Wednesday, stating that he expects all car companies to expand operations in the U.S. or relocate their businesses to the U.S. if they are not already in the country. The UAW said in a news release that the move marks the “beginning of the end of a thirty-plus year ‘free trade’ disaster,” which “devastated the working class” in the U.S. Ending the race to the bottom in the auto industry starts with fixing our broken trade deals, and the Trump administration has made history with today’s actions, UAW President Shawn Fain said in a statement.

“The UAW/ and the working class in general couldn’t care less about party politics; working people expect leaders to work together to deliver results. “These tariffs are a major step in the right direction for autoworkers and blue-collar communities across the country, and it is now on the automakers, from the Big Three to Volkswagen and beyond, to bring back good union jobs to the U.S.,” he added. The announcement comes ahead of next week’s “liberation day,” where Trump is expected to impose large scale tariffs on U.S. allies and trading partners, including Canada and Mexico. Those tariffs are expected to go into effect on April 2.

Read more …

Spreading far and wide: “..German automakers currently have 330 automotive suppliers in Mexico..”

Auto Tariffs: German Carmakers Face Billions in Losses (CTH)

The atomic sledgehammer that President Trump just delivered to the German auto industry simply cannot be overemphasized. A 25% tariff on imported cars and car parts completely negates hundreds of billions in pre-positioned investment dollars by German auto companies in Mexico. To give scale to the impact on Germany, consider that German automakers currently have 330 automotive suppliers in Mexico according to information from VDA. Audi (a subsidiary of Volkswagen) has no U.S. production sites; every Audi sold in America will be subject to a 25% tariff. The Audi brand access to the U.S. market was/is 100% dependent on Mexico, including for manufacturing the Q5 SUV, its top-selling U.S. model. According to prior reporting from Politico, “Volkswagen’s most popular model for American consumers is the Tiguan, an SUV that is entirely manufactured in Mexico.

The German automaker sold over 30,000 of the vehicles in the final quarter of last year, a nearly 50 percent year-over-year increase.” But wait, it gets worse…. French-Italian-American automaker Stellantis is the most exposed of Europe’s automakers as it makes Jeep and RAM models in Mexico. The tariffs will make European automakers’ Mexican factories completely redundant. They could make them in Germany for the same tariff impact. Making them in Mexico is now useless. They were only being made/assembled in Mexico to gain access to the U.S. market without tariffs. This reality will push all EU automakers to shift production to the U.S. There could also be an explosion in UAW membership depending on where in the USA the EU car companies end up manufacturing.

The auto industry is only one industry, but it is a huge economic driver for multiple countries, especially those countries who depend on access to the U.S. market in order to sell their cars and trucks. German automakers will need three things, quickly: (1) Subsidies from German govt to help offset the impact of tariffs [Short term 2-5 years]. (2) Shift production of autos for U.S market into USA [Make in USA]. (3) Interim access to new markets to help offset the anticipated drop in demand [think Russia without sanctions]. Each of these facets plays into current geopolitics. That’s mainly just the German impact. Then overlay Canada and Mexico (big impact), along with South Korea and Japan (lesser impact due to pre-positioned manufacturing/assembly in the USA). The auto-tariffs carry a huge economic outcome around the globe.

Read more …

“The new US president has shelved the rainbow banners of BLM and the alphabet soup of Western liberalism..”

Liberalism Is Dead, This Is What Comes After (Trenin)

The phrase “changing world order” has become a familiar refrain in international affairs. But what’s often missed is how rapidly that change is now unfolding – and who is accelerating it. Regime changes in international relations are usually the result of crises: wars between great powers or upheavals within them. This was the case in 1939-1945 and again in 1989-1991. Usually, the problems accumulate over years and decades, and the resolution comes unexpectedly: the slow movement of tectonic plates suddenly accelerates dramatically, an avalanche begins that rapidly changes the landscape. We have had the opportunity to observe something similar in recent weeks. The most striking thing is that the main factor in the changes has been the leadership of the state which until now has defended the remnants of the old world order most stubbornly, even fiercely.

The fall of unipolarity, once long predicted and cautiously awaited, has arrived ahead of schedule. The United States, long the enforcer of liberal internationalism, is no longer trying to stop the shift toward a multipolar world. Under Donald Trump, it has joined it. This pivot is not a mere campaign promise or rhetorical shift. It is a structural break. In the space of weeks, the US has gone from resisting the multipolar order to attempting to dominate it on new terms – less moralism, more realism. In doing so, Washington may inadvertently help deliver the very outcome that previous administrations worked so hard to prevent. Trump’s turn has broad and lasting implications. The world’s most powerful actor has abandoned the guardianship of liberal globalism and embraced something far more pragmatic: great power rivalry.

The language of human rights and democracy promotion has been replaced with “America First,” not just domestically, but in foreign relations as well. The new US president has shelved the rainbow banners of BLM and the alphabet soup of Western liberalism. Instead, he waves the American flag with confidence, signaling to allies and adversaries alike: US foreign policy is now about interests, not ideologies. This is not theoretical. It is a geopolitical earthquake. Firstly, multipolarity is no longer hypothetical. Trump has shifted the US from an enforcer of unipolarity to a player in multipolarity. His doctrine – “great power competition” – aligns more with the realist tradition than with the post-Cold War liberalism that dominated Washington for decades.

In this view, the world is made up of sovereign poles: the US, China, Russia, India – each pursuing its own interests, sometimes in conflict, sometimes overlapping. Cooperation arises not from shared values, but from shared necessities. This is a world Russia knows well – and one in which it thrives. Secondly, Washington’s pivot to realism means a fundamental shift in how it engages with the world. The era of liberal crusades is over. Trump has defunded USAID, slashed “democracy promotion” budgets, and shown a willingness to work with regimes of all types – so long as they serve American interests. This is a departure from the binary moral frameworks of the past. And ironically, it aligns more closely with Moscow’s own worldview. Under Trump, the White House no longer seeks to export liberalism, but to negotiate power.

Thirdly, the West, as we knew it, is gone. The liberal “collective West” – defined by shared ideology and transatlantic solidarity – no longer exists in its previous form. The US has effectively withdrawn from it, prioritizing national interest over globalist commitments. What remains is a fractured West, split between nationalist-led governments like Trump’s and more traditional liberal strongholds in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin. The internal clash between these two visions – nationalism versus globalism – is now the defining political struggle across the West.

Read more …

“..leaking classified documents to foreign media and orchestrating leaks from high-level government offices, allegedly with Netanyahu’s own approval..”

Will This Scandal Be The End Of ‘Unsinkable’ Netanyahu? (Sadygzade)

A major scandal known as “Qatargate” has erupted in Israel, involving alleged Qatari interference in Israeli politics. At the center of the investigation is Eliezer Feldstein, former chief aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He was arrested in November 2024 on charges of leaking classified documents to foreign media and orchestrating leaks from high-level government offices, allegedly with Netanyahu’s own approval, under the pretext of combating disinformation.

The investigation revealed Feldstein’s connections with Qatari authorities. While serving as an employee of the press office in Netanyahu’s administration, Feldstein had for several years combined his government work with private practice, offering political consulting and branding services. One of his clients was Qatar. Specifically, on behalf of Doha, Feldstein and his team of Israeli consultants developed a reputation protection strategy during preparations for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Later, they helped Qatari brands regain their positions in Gulf markets that had been lost during the 2017-2021 diplomatic crisis.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Chemo

 

 

Hee haw
https://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1904910177347772736

 

 

Chewey

 

 

Ketchup
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1905211149940830537

 

 

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